S:C

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    385

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by S:C

  1. Posted · Edited by S:C

    On 16.4.2024 at 10:30 PM, forestofemptiness said:

    It is interesting that Advaitins have to contend with the idea that things are impermanent and constantly changing, whereas Buddhists have to contend with the idea that things are enduring and lasting! I suppose it depends on how one tunes the mind. 

    I am a little rusty in the lingo. Especially with the Advaitins. And I lack understandable explanations - which are not available in my language, as far as I see.
     

    Where do the concepts of „substantiality“ differ concerning svabhava… ?

     

    @dwai could you provide us with a translation of 

    Quote

    So interesting. Yet it is the Buddhists who say “kshanikam kshanikam sarvam kshanikam” and the advaitins who say, “sarvam khalu idam 

    brahm

    a” 

    please? (Don‘t know how or why this got an orange colouring…)
     

     

    So the Advaitins despite their focus on impermanence see ‚God‘  while the Buddhists do not? 
     

    Empty of substance in both views?

  5. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Apech said:


    I can’t understand it explainerly.

    When treaded categories fall away, the search for structure continues for the functional mind. Garfield/Priest discuss it nicely, Why mountains are mountains or the like… (I forgot).

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    無?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

    mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

    For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero." That's silly! Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu state.[22]

  8. Posted · Edited by S:C

    45 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

     

    The mind is polarized and can swing any way you can imagine it to be. There is a saying, believe something long enough and it will be true.

    That more how I understood it, @Apech Language (in that view) constitutes reality. Claiming an observation via language seems to constitute a different layer of reality (for lack of better words), in that view. To rely on feelings, wishes and personal needs and preference is therefore deemed ‚valid enough’, just as well as empirical sense data (both faulty, but necessary nonetheless). 
    A claim that is backed up, constitutes reality. Language is reality, then, not a map thereof. 
    Please correct me if I am wrong here.

    • Like 1
    • Confused 2

  9. Posted · Edited by S:C
    typo

    6 hours ago, Taomeow said:

    Q: when did the difference between "sex" and "gender" in humans enter the discourse in the current understanding, and who proposed this usage, and what was it based on? 

    Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
    • Wow 1

  10. Posted

    14 hours ago, Nungali said:

    My definition is on 7 levels;  a man should have '7 heads' . But I won't go into that here  .....   off topic .

     

    I will say however that in some of these systems , what 'makes you a man' might be considered effeminate  in some western views . Eg . in the Samurai tradition , you are not a 'real man' unless  you can arrange a nice bunch of flowers  (ikibana ) , appreciate nature and beauty ,  write beautiful and meaningful poetry , and in a beautiful calligraphic style and spend some time on your hairdo and facial make up

    Would you care to make it a topic? :) 

  13. Posted

    22 hours ago, Daniel said:

    The sword = division

    Differentiation. 


    Seems contradictory to the approach for reuniting with God, no? 

     

    And to Matthew 7:1: Judge not lest you be judged. (By the same standards maybe.)

     

    A purification of sorts through the process of differentiation for a clearance of sorts? Odd.
     

  14. Posted

    41 minutes ago, stirling said:

    In this case I mean:

     

    • Practices (or teachings) that are in "harmony" or lead to harmony (enlightenment).

     

    • ALL "phenomena" that appear in our experience which are themselves already in harmony (enlightened), and are actually teachings themselves. 

     

    The "dharmakaya" is the term for the space in which all phenomena appear. It is also considered to be the "teaching body" of the Buddhas. These are the two facets of the word "dharma" I am speaking specifically about

    Thank you for your explanation @stirling, I had read the article on wiki before, but it seems to have a very wide array of meanings and I was baffled at the plural. It’s clearer now! :) 

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, Gerard said:

     

    The Egg

    Lovely, amusing reading, thanks! 
     

    @manitou, concerning 

    Quote

    Does anyone here ever wonder if 'god' and DNA are the very same thing?

    Someone here did,

     
    and someone else whose user name I’ve forgotten, but who had a similar way of writing as the one above. 
     

    @stirling, what please is the concept of “all dharmas”, - isn’t there just one? Which definition or explanation can be given for this word concept?
     

  18. Posted · Edited by S:C

    3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

    Even if nobody actually goes to prison, the threat of legal action throws a pall over free speech.

    No way out of this, neither dead nor alive. :D I expect even thought conceptualizations will thus forcibly be moved accordingly, - perfidious -  neither free speech, nor free thought might remain. Regardless of the topic. (Just remember a few years back or take a look at a different country that now experiences similar sanctions.) 
    Nothing will remain. If it’s experienced. Oblivion seems to be the only solid answer. Sitting and forgetting - strangely - might be the only sane reaction to this. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  19. Posted

    Marvellous, how everyone has their own constant unique direct and unfailing and perception of ‘true reality‘ and ‘objectivity’! I do admire those who have it, life must be a lot easier….

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    20 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

    wu-wei does not mean any of the highlighted things. Instead it means all and any kinds of actions which are performed by another party on your behalf.

    So it’s about setting in motion a causal chain from one’s own behalf - action and inaction?

    Thought the old daoist concept of causality (shi) had a different interpretation of this… maybe someone can explain this?

  24. Posted · Edited by S:C

    Just an opinion while speaking to a friend: 

     

    life tasks should be looked at like through the emotional ‘wuxing’ model as a task where one has still troubled emotions burried, triggered or stirred and it should be acted upon this and not regarding rational outcome. 
     

    E.g. if fear is a recurring problem, decisions shouldn’t be based on safety issues, money, insurance and personal flimsies, but on working through the emotional issue.
     

    (I’m not sure if I really own this opinion, but the image seemed promising yet chaotic and irrational.)

    • Like 1

  25. Posted · Edited by S:C

    1 hour ago, Nungali said:

    Love unrequited, robs me of me rest,

    Nah, that’s the nice madness, you should happily enjoy if you can. (In fact I didn’t read your full poem, so I don’t know if my statement is sincere here.)
     

    The general human madness is on different level. It has no hope.

     

    And there is a difference between heart love and erotical love indeed (having read your poem now) although at times it might coincide.