Scholar

Are there evil master?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Nope .

 

what is it damnit! insects??? reptiles??? :D

 

Edited by welkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

In the beginning, things just are.  It takes experience to find that things arent that way- and that is when we start to compare them, and decide on the idea that there is duality.  There is no duality, things just are- and as it goes, things arent.  

 

 

:D 

 

That in itself is a type of 'duality' . 

 

'Things just are '   this is   'unity' .  The things that are , are thing like   humidity, temperature,  illumination ( for example ) ; in this form , as concepts they have the unity.  But all things exist in a 'range' , in a 'flexibility of expression' - life runs on  analogue  not digital  ( and the misunderstanding of attributing things to digital might be behind the valid part of your protest about 'duality' ? ) .

 

So the 'analogue expressions'  of humidity, temperature,  illumination  result in  ;  wet / dry ,  hot / cold, , light / dark.   The first set  (unity) are  concepts or 'first experiences'   or 'ideal concepts' , the second come as accrued experience or real concepts.  First experience is limited, un experienced and self referential - but life and nature  is bigger than that  - outside the limited sphere of one person , these potentials always exist in nature ...  and are expressed in duality .... ie, they operate within a range of extremities within their own sphere . 

The thing itself and its extremities make a form of   triplicity  and then multiplicity , yet still all these things have the imprint of the original 'duality' ... or 'polarity ' .

 

- The Tao begot one.
  One begot two.
  Two begot three.
  And three begot the ten thousand things.

 The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, welkin said:

 

what is it damnit! insects???

 

No .

 

Quote

 

 

reptiles??? :D

 

 

 

Nah .

 

(Do you realise what you are doing here ?   You are asking  can a certain behaviour said to be  worse than an animal's behaviour   be described at the same time  as like some specific  animal ? )

 

Maybe you misunderstood my original statement on this ?

 

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

:D 

 

That in itself is a type of 'duality' . 

 

So the 'analogue expressions'  of humidity, temperature,  illumination  result in  ;  wet / dry ,  hot / cold, , light / dark.

 

:D

 

Why? Only because you say so? Is cold not cold and hot not just hot?

 

Edited by welkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, welkin said:

 

:D

 

Why? Only because you say so?

 

Of course not .   That would be extremely egotistical and self referential  of me   :)

 

Thats why I quoted  Ch 42 . Did you not notice that Lao says it as well ?  

 

And he says it because nature and the universe say it . One needs to observe nature to gain not only knowledge but also wisdom and understanding .  Also it is in theory of numbers

 

 

3 minutes ago, welkin said:

Is cold not cold and hot not just hot?

 

 

BOTH are dualistic expressions of temperature  .  So they are not 'just'  one thing or the other .

 

Again !   "  The Tao begot one.    One begot two. "

 

Think about what 'begot'  means   ; to cause; produce as an effect etc .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Right.  Please pardon the interruption,

 

But the very fact that non-duality can be compared to duality is, in-and-of-itself by definition 'duality'.  There is no way around it, from my perspective.  There is a duality in The Eternal Dao.  It's all over the DDJ, isn't it?


From the view it cannot be (compared to anything that is) - it is positionless, and duality as I was using it here refers to subject/object dichotomy.. when the self as a reified subject falls away there is only what in this moment I’ll refer to as a dance of mutually arising phenomena. 
 

Quote

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
     this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.


I would suggest desire (and the action of naming) provides the vision of manifestations, and duality. While being desireless enables a dance of non-duality. 

 

I would also suggest that the argument you have presented is beautifully illustrated in the first four lines here. As soon as I start naming and separating things out with words, I create an experience of the ten thousand things, and as you said, “there is no way around it.”  So there is no way to share what I wish to point towards, without setting up the very argument you presented, and sometimes I share anyway - trusting the individual to recognize what is being pointed towards, or not, according to their present disposition.
 

IMO this is where one will actually look to what the words intended to convey, or get lost in them.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

May I respectfully disagree?

 

The polarity/duality is in Chapter 38?  Isn't it?  It's between good vs folly.

 

If I understood @helpfuldemon's words ( see below ) the argument being made is "there is no duality" but chapter 38 does not say that at all.  It begins and ends describing the opposing inner motivational conflict between goodness and ignorance ( aka folly ).  chapter 38 encourages goodness.  That is not what is reflected in the words below.  Do you disagree?

 

 

 

image.png


Of course you can disagree.

 

I do not feel chapter 38 encourages goodness in the manner I am understanding you to present, and I believe the bit about trying to do good being considered not good highlights this.

 

For your consideration I present this article on the paradox of virtue:

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40213566

 

Regarding the rest, I cannot speak for the other poster’s intent - only share a certain understanding where it could actually make sense, and still fall within a Taoist framework (even if we are actually in the general discussion area, and this shouldn’t be of to much importance).

 

What do the following lines convey to you?


“A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.”

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I would suggest desire (and the action of naming) provides the vision of manifestations, and duality. While being desireless enables a dance of non-duality. 

agreed. And well said.  I'll try to remember that.  The dance metaphor is wonderful.  :)

 

45 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I do not feel chapter 38 encourages goodness in the manner I am understanding you to present, and I believe the bit about trying to do good being considered not good highlights this.

 

For your consideration I present this article on the paradox of virtue:

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40213566

I'm fighting with getting my password reset for this site; but I'll check it out when I'm able.

 

46 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

What do the following lines convey to you?


“A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.”

 

Two realities, one truth.

 

The good / folly dichotomy both exists and doesn't exist.  That's the two realities.  However, the one truth is, we can only be in one reality at a time.

 

Two realities, one truth.

 

I choose to live in the reality where there exists good and folly.  Although I could choose to live in the other world too.  It's a perk of being self realized.  But I can't really be in both at the same time.  I think, again, it's a feature of The Eternal Dao.  That's the whole deal with immortals and ascended masters, etc... But don't quote me on any of that...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand what is meant by duality of subject/object.  An object is just a thing, until it is examined or interacted with, at which point it becomes something known.   If the object is known, it is not a subject yet, until it is interacted with or spoken of.  The only dichotomy I can imagine in this scenario is when our interpretation of the object contradicts its purpose or intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

I dont understand what is meant by duality of subject/object.  An object is just a thing, until it is examined or interacted with, at which point it becomes something known.   If the object is known, it is not a subject yet, until it is interacted with or spoken of.  The only dichotomy I can imagine in this scenario is when our interpretation of the object contradicts its purpose or intention.

It takes time... you'll figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no duality in hot and cold, your perception of temperature is flawed, all it is, is the speed of movement of molecules. if you slow them down you can freeze space, if there is a lot of energy, movement gets faster, hence you feel heat.

 

But human sensations are based off human body temperature. Faster than inside body is warm or hot, slower is chill or cold.

 

That said it is quite possible to live on the surface of sun, if your body is not fixed on 36.6 degree

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had a powerful body with 100k more energy and base temperature of tens thousands degrees you would be able to swim in magma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

There is no duality in hot and cold, your perception of temperature is flawed, all it is, is the speed of movement of molecules. if you slow them down you can freeze space, if there is a lot of energy, movement gets faster, hence you feel heat.

 

 

But human sensations are based off human body temperature. Faster than inside body is warm or hot, slower is chill or cold.

 

You are being entirely self referential here and subjective .  I wasnt talking about weather I feel hot or cold or not . Temperature can change the way matter itself  behaves , temperature exists without human existence .

 

And your comment is disingenuous  you say 'but human sensations are based off body temperature "  ... so ?  I never mentioned  'human sensations in the first place . Yoy just bought that in and added it yourself to shore up your own misinterpretation of what I said .

 

and not only that , I even clearly stated I was going beyond human sensations ; " First experience is limited, un experienced and self referential - but life and nature  is bigger than that  - outside the limited sphere of one person , these potentials always exist in nature ...

 

So no ,  the 'flaw' you detected was NOT mine , but something you made up yourself

 

14 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

That said it is quite possible to live on the surface of sun, if your body is not fixed on 36.6 degree

 

 

 

You would be running a high temperature  then  for your 'body'  ... so high, that when you came home , you might have to do 2 weeks self isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

If you had a powerful body with 100k more energy and base temperature of tens thousands degrees you would be able to swim in magma

 

Self referential again .

 

Try some science instead  ;

 

At the absolute zero of temperature, no more energy can be removed from matter as heat, a fact expressed in the third law of thermodynamics. At this temperature, matter contains no macroscopic thermal energy, but still has quantum-mechanical zero-point energy as predicted by the uncertainty principle. This does not enter into the definition of absolute temperature. Experimentally, absolute zero can only be approached very closely, but can never be actually reached. If it were possible to cool a system to absolute zero, all classical motion of its particles would cease and they would be at complete rest in this classical sense. The absolute zero, defined as 0 K, is approximately equal to −273.15 °C, or −459.67 °F.

 

Contemporary models of physical cosmology postulate that the highest possible temperature is the Planck temperature, which has the value 1.416785(71)×1032 kelvin, or about 2.55×1032 fahrenheit.[1] Above about 1032 K, particle energies become so large that gravitational forces between them would become as strong as other fundamental forces according to current theories. There is no existing scientific theory for the behavior of matter at these energies; a quantum theory of gravity would be required.[2] The models of the origin of the universe based on the Big Bang theory assume that the universe passed through this temperature about 10−42 s (one Planck time) after the Big Bang as a result of enormous entropy expansion.[1]

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/14/2020 at 1:03 AM, Nungali said:

And your comment is disingenuous  you say 'but human sensations are based off body temperature "  ... so ?  I never mentioned  'human sensations in the first place . Yoy just bought that in and added it yourself to shore up your own misinterpretation of what I said .

 

Never did I quote you, nor do I have any interest quoting anything you ever said.

Nor do I have any interest engaging into any discussions with you.

You can be 100% I don't read any of your posts as I don't believe they are worthy a second of my time.

Edited by SongShuhang
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

You can be 100% I don't read any of your posts as I don't believe they are worthy a second of my time.

With the exception of the one just quoted 😁

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/13/2020 at 12:33 AM, SongShuhang said:

If you had a powerful body with 100k more energy and base temperature of tens thousands degrees you would be able to swim in magma

 

On 7/13/2020 at 3:12 PM, Nungali said:

Self referential again .

 

Try some science instead  ;

 

Yes, respectfully @SongShuhang ,    @Nungali is correct.  Your model about swimming in magma is not a good one.  In the example you offered, energetically, the magma would nullify into you.  You would not be swimming in magma, the magma would become part of you.  It would be like the light of the sun nullifying the light of the flame of a bic lighter.  In this analogy you are the sun, and the magma is the light coming off of the bic lighter.

 

In theory, one could attempt to experience what it is like to be swimming in magma, but this would be an internal practice.  It has nothing to do with a powerful body and increasing the base temperature tens of thousands of degrees.

 

( Disclaimer I am offering an academic opinion, I do not practice Daoism )

 

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

Never did I quote you, nor do I have any interest quoting anything you ever said.

 

Oh, I see ... you just 'happened to' comment on  a subject that I just posted about   :) 

 

I was the only one that raved on about temperature and then after that you decided to refute what I wrote .... without ever reading my post in the first place .

 

My goodness !   What an incredible coincidence !  :rolleyes:

 

15 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

Nor do I have any interest engaging into any discussions with you.

You can be 100% I don't read any of your posts as I don't believe they are worthy a second of my time.


 

 I cant be  100% certain you never read any of my posts as you just  responded to one .  .... Unless you respond to posts you never read in the first place .

 

If you are gonna make up excuses  for your actions - at least make up good ones .

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cleansox said:

With the exception of the one just quoted 😁

 

Sorta put his foot right in that one !  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Yes, respectfully @SongShuhang ,    @Nungali is correct.  Your model about swimming in magma is not a good one.  In the example you offered, energetically, the magma would nullify into you.  You would not be swimming in magma, the magma would become part of you.  It would be like the light of the sun nullifying the light of the flame of a bic lighter.  In this analogy you are the sun, and the magma is the light coming off of the bic lighter.

 

In theory, one could attempt to experience what it is like to be swimming in magma, but this would be an internal practice.  It has nothing to do with a powerful body and increasing the base temperature tens of thousands of degrees.

 

( Disclaimer I am offering an academic opinion, I do not practice Daoism )

 

 

I saw a doco on a crazy Volcanologist .... he was playing by a river of lava in one of those heat resistant suits .  he started raving how it  might be possible, and he wanted to try it , to make a small boat out of that heat resistant material like the suit was made of, in able to   go down the river in it . His wife admitted he was crazy enough to try it , and such stunts would probably kill him .

 

I think he got killed by a lava bomb a few years later .

 

@ 1:20  crazy  ! 

 

 

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

Never did I quote you, nor do I have any interest quoting anything you ever said.

Nor do I have any interest engaging into any discussions with you.

You can be 100% I don't read any of your posts as I don't believe they are worthy a second of my time.

 

Together they stand, together they fall. Don't worry, they believe you're a character playing in the game they created. What isn't realized is the game they created is within a game. That is why Pinnochio's nose kept growing over centuries. a curse of lying that can't be undone. That is why the game feels like you're alone and they are many. How can you be alone when you stand next to he who watches them all in the palm of his hand. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 5:54 PM, Daniel said:

energetically, the magma would nullify into you.

 

Where did you get this bs from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 1:14 PM, Cleansox said:

With the exception of the one just quoted 😁

 

I will ignore you too, you add nothing valuable to the post, and this is clearly a troll jerking competition you are doing right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

Where did you get this bs from?

It didn't come from anywhere,  I thought it was logical and still do.  It's based on QM quantum mechanics.  When particles becoming very hot, their properties and behavior changes into a domain that is inherently probabilistic.  It's Math.  Based on what I know about high energy particles, the odds are, the magma would nullify into you.  That's all.

 

You're welcome to disagree;   And, I defer to your knowledge and judgement on this, seriously.  I know nothing about making oneself into a human fusion reactor while simultaneously maintaining their sense of self.

 

 

Edited by Daniel
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

 

I will ignore you too, you add nothing valuable to the post, and this is clearly a troll jerking competition you are doing right now

I am making fun of you and your superior, negative attitude. 

That is an time-honoured way of dealing with it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites