Discussion:
Religion VS Kabbalah
(too old to reply)
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-27 19:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Religion is simply reception of spiritual pleasure directly in a free-
for-all fashion, but without having first corrected the vessel (kli),
and acquired a screen (masach) which would only let a small amount of
light in, namely that which can be used for the purpose of 'bestowal to
others'. There are four modes of existence: 1.) Receiving for oneself;
2.) Receiving for others; 3.) Giving for oneself; 4.) Giving for others.
We're in mode 1 right now. Some people known as naturally altruistic are
in 3, by default. They like to help out others, because it makes them
feel good, automatically. But it's still egoistic. Number 4 is the
Creator. It only gives in order to give, and receives nothing from it,
because it lacks nothing. That only leaves out number 2, which is what's
missing from the picture and the place we need to arrive at, via
correction of the intention of for-oneself, into for-others. So the idea
is correct, to try to connect to the spiritual, but they're not going
about it the right way, eg: they're simply pretending to already have a
connection. They think I just recite John 3:16, and somehow believe in
what it says with all my heart and presto, I now can receive all sorts
of spiritual pleasure directly, no need for priests or saints. Just give
me the Bible, that's God directly talking to me. I am my own
interpreter. I then internalize what I read and begin acting
accordingly, by letting the words penetrate my being. Then when I act a
certain way, unless I've clearly deviated, in the gray areas I will feel
that I am receiving guidance from above, by using the appropriate verse
that sort of hints at that. And I will be convinced that I am right, and
that Jesus is with me. But to get back at the topic under discussion.
The kli needs a masach so that the light doesn't overwhelm it, only
letting a small amount in, which will not lead to egoism and pleasure
for oneself, but can be used to bestow that spiritual pleasure to
others. That screen is acquired when all the souls are reunited as one,
and truly loving one another where the proper attitude has been
carefully cultivated and allowed to flourish with the help of the Zohar,
following its instructions. Relying on the others in our group for
support. Listening to the Rav for difficult to understand passages. And
never mixing the spiritual with the corporeal, but the latter simply
being a manifestation of the former. Change the mind, and the body will
follow, never the other way around. So after you build that common kli,
now you can start receiving spiritual pleasure and bestow it to the
others around you (whether physical or virtual), only thinking of their
spiritual progress, not of your own. Their progress is now your
progress, also. But the religious think just say a prayer and mean it,
or read a specific verse, and I'm suddenly healed. Doesn't work like
that. You have to train the mind through rigorous exercises just like in
any profession.

octinomos
Tom
2011-09-27 21:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
Religion is simply reception of spiritual pleasure directly in a free-
for-all fashion, but without having first corrected the vessel (kli),
and acquired a screen (masach) which would only let a small amount of
light in, namely that which can be used for the purpose of 'bestowal to
others'.
That's putting it "simply?" How many metaphors have you got mixed in
there anyway?
Post by Dennes De Mennes
There are four modes of existence: 1.) Receiving for oneself;
2.) Receiving for others; 3.) Giving for oneself; 4.) Giving for others.
We're in mode 1 right now.
"What you mean 'we', white man?" -- Tonto
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-27 22:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7c7d39d0-21fd-49f8-98f4-266ba6d924f8
@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
That's putting it "simply?" How many metaphors have you got mixed in
there anyway?
are you talking about the small section you quoted or the whole thing...
Tom
2011-09-28 01:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <7c7d39d0-21fd-49f8-98f4-266ba6d924f8
@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
That's putting it "simply?"  How many metaphors have you got mixed in
there anyway?
are you talking about the small section you quoted or the whole thing...
Would it matter? The comment stands either way.

I don't think you have to resort to metaphors of sports, alchemy,
optics, and the Gift of Tongues in a single sentence in order to
define the word "religion". Not only are you too complex but you
utterly fail to define the term despite all that. It's like you got
lost somewhere in the middle of the sentence and couldn't find your
way back to the point.
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-28 06:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2abe8f1e-cb9d-40bc-ac62-4658390b4c83
@o11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <7c7d39d0-21fd-49f8-98f4-266ba6d924f8
@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
That's putting it "simply?"  How many metaphors have you got mixed in
there anyway?
are you talking about the small section you quoted or the whole thing...
Would it matter? The comment stands either way.
I don't think you have to resort to metaphors of sports, alchemy,
optics, and the Gift of Tongues in a single sentence in order to
define the word "religion". Not only are you too complex but you
utterly fail to define the term despite all that. It's like you got
lost somewhere in the middle of the sentence and couldn't find your
way back to the point.
i mean yeah, if you extract one small section it might look stupid, but
when looked as a whole, then it's more coherent...
Tom
2011-09-28 13:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i mean yeah, if you extract one small section it might look stupid, but
when looked as a whole, then it's more coherent...
But still chock full of erroneous presumptions, mixed metaphors, and
arrogance.
Robert Scott Martin
2011-09-28 13:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
But still chock full of erroneous presumptions, mixed metaphors, and
arrogance.
The initial dismissal of "religion" as "simply reception of spiritual
pleasure" was promising as a Gurdjieffian corrective for the treacly
sentimentality that afflicts the Monk's Way. But then all the tongue
service to the yogins oversalted the caramel.
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-28 19:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <e6807b64-fcd7-4cfc-bdd4-b39f875b4296
@d26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i mean yeah, if you extract one small section it might look stupid, but
when looked as a whole, then it's more coherent...
But still chock full of erroneous presumptions, mixed metaphors, and
arrogance.
well, excuse me, mr. know it all...
Tom
2011-09-28 20:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <e6807b64-fcd7-4cfc-bdd4-b39f875b4296
@d26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i mean yeah, if you extract one small section it might look stupid, but
when looked as a whole, then it's more coherent...
But still chock full of erroneous presumptions, mixed metaphors, and
arrogance.
well, excuse me, mr. know it all...
Here's "Mr. Know It All":

"So the idea is correct, to try to connect to the spiritual, but
they're not going
about it the right way..."

"But the religious think just say a prayer and mean it,
or read a specific verse, and I'm suddenly healed. Doesn't work like
that. You have to train the mind through rigorous exercises just like
in
any profession."

Here's a demonstrably erroneous presumption:

"Change the mind, and the body will follow, never the other way
around."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

And now for "arrogant":

You are alright with telling other people the error of their ways but
you resent me telling you the error of your ways. Arrogance is
feeling insulted when you are treated the same way you treat others.
Mike Duffy
2011-09-29 00:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
You are alright with telling other people the error of their ways but
you resent me telling you the error of your ways. Arrogance is
feeling insulted when you are treated the same way you treat others.
That looks more like the definition of "hypocrisy". An arrogant person does
not care much about what other people think.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm#
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-29 01:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7343c834-13a0-496d-a08d-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
Post by Tom
But still chock full of erroneous presumptions, mixed metaphors, and
arrogance.
well, excuse me, mr. know it all...
"So the idea is correct, to try to connect to the spiritual, but
they're not going
about it the right way..."
bla bla,

i like how you take sections and isolate them and make them look stupid,
of course they look stupid without the appropriate context. the whole
thing needs to be looked at as a unit--not all broken up into incoherent
broken parts. when seen as a whole, it stands on its own and people
either get it or they don't. i'm writing at my level.
Tom
2011-09-29 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <7343c834-13a0-496d-a08d-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
Post by Tom
arrogance.
well, excuse me, mr. know it all...
"So the idea is correct, to try to connect to the spiritual, but
they're not going
about it the right way..."
bla bla,
Oh come now. Pre-adolescent taunts?
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i like how you take sections and isolate them and make them look stupid,
of course they look stupid without the appropriate context. the whole
thing needs to be looked at as a unit--not all broken up into incoherent
broken parts. when seen as a whole, it stands on its own and people
either get it or they don't. i'm writing at my level.
Your statements look just as stupid when read as part of the whole as
they do in isolation. I cite certain sentences to highlight their
presence, not to mask their context. Those quotes, taken either alone
or accompanied by surrounding text, are in no way unrepresentative of
the point you were trying to make. You were writing in a very
condescending manner about the erroneous presumptions of others and
your resentful reaction to my comment about your own erroneous
presumptions tells us just how arrogant your attitude is.

I remember a New Yorker cartoon I saw years ago... A smiling king is
telling his courtier, "What I like best about being king is that you
can dish it out but you don't have to take it."
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-29 08:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <f7ff1f82-836d-4542-b993-
Post by Tom
Your statements look just as stupid when read as part of the whole as
they do in isolation. I cite certain sentences to highlight their
presence, not to mask their context. Those quotes, taken either alone
or accompanied by surrounding text, are in no way unrepresentative of
the point you were trying to make.
what tom is writing this , is it the stupid tom from privat-x.org?
i can never tell by the content.
Tom
2011-09-29 15:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <f7ff1f82-836d-4542-b993-
Post by Tom
Your statements look just as stupid when read as part of the whole as
they do in isolation.  I cite certain sentences to highlight their
presence, not to mask their context.  Those quotes, taken either alone
or accompanied by surrounding text, are in no way unrepresentative of
the point you were trying to make.
what tom is writing this , is it the stupid tom from privat-x.org?
i can never tell by the content.
Then check the headers. You're still avoiding the content of the
criticism by focusing instead on the author.

You cannot avoid hypocrisy if you are inclined to tell others that
they are wrong while refusing to accept being told the same thing
yourself. Either the rules apply equally to all, or the game is
rigged.
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-29 17:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <f23d5d47-ae06-4953-b842-3dd6b4dabb24
@k6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
You cannot avoid hypocrisy if you are inclined to tell others that
they are wrong while refusing to accept being told the same thing
yourself. Either the rules apply equally to all, or the game is
rigged.
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Tom
2011-09-29 23:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <f23d5d47-ae06-4953-b842-3dd6b4dabb24
@k6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
You cannot avoid hypocrisy if you are inclined to tell others that
they are wrong while refusing to accept being told the same thing
yourself.  Either the rules apply equally to all, or the game is
rigged.
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-30 00:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist. religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
Absorbed
2011-09-30 10:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article<2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist.
You might try reading Tom's post again. He didn't say you were
religious; he said you're not religious. Another question mark on your
supposed instinct to determine truth, even when all the evidence is in
front of your nose.
religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
What work have you done? As far as I can tell, you've simply signed up
to a free kabbalah course and then blindly believed in everything it has
told you. I'd say that's a stereotypical example of someone "trying to
engage in spirituality without doing the work".
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-30 11:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <j6466j$8gr$***@dont-email.me>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Absorbed
In article<2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist.
You might try reading Tom's post again. He didn't say you were
religious; he said you're not religious. Another question mark on your
supposed instinct to determine truth, even when all the evidence is in
front of your nose.
i didn't say he said i was religionist. that was just a statement i made
which was not linked to anything as being some sort of response to it.
Absorbed
2011-09-30 12:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
In article<2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist.
You might try reading Tom's post again. He didn't say you were
religious; he said you're not religious. Another question mark on your
supposed instinct to determine truth, even when all the evidence is in
front of your nose.
i didn't say he said i was religionist. that was just a statement i made
which was not linked to anything as being some sort of response to it.
Or you're lying to avoid owning up to your inability to comprehend Tom's
post.

Since you've been receiving criticism for your foray into kabbalah, more
and more you've been ignoring what others have to say here. Now your
replies have little to do with what you're responding to.

Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-30 12:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <j64ci8$f61$***@dont-email.me>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Absorbed
Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
such as? let's address each issue at a time...
Absorbed
2011-09-30 13:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
such as? let's address each issue at a time...
Your study of kabbalah is limited to one source which you're blindly
trusting in. I suggested you study multiple sources, including sources
that suggest kabbalah is bullshit, so you get a better and fuller
understanding of the subject.
Dennes De Mennes
2011-09-30 20:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <j64g8n$7g3$***@dont-email.me>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Absorbed
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
such as? let's address each issue at a time...
Your study of kabbalah is limited to one source which you're blindly
trusting in. I suggested you study multiple sources, including sources
that suggest kabbalah is bullshit, so you get a better and fuller
understanding of the subject.
that's not a question. more of a suggestion. i appreciate the input.
Absorbed
2011-10-01 07:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
such as? let's address each issue at a time...
Your study of kabbalah is limited to one source which you're blindly
trusting in. I suggested you study multiple sources, including sources
that suggest kabbalah is bullshit, so you get a better and fuller
understanding of the subject.
that's not a question. more of a suggestion. i appreciate the input.
So much for addressing each issue one at a time...
Tom
2011-09-30 14:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
says...
Post by Absorbed
Rather than addressing the criticism, you're ignoring it, shutting it
out, hiding.
such as? let's address each issue at a time...
Such as the points I made that you have refused to address.

Let's take your first sentence.

"Religion is simply reception of spiritual pleasure directly in a
free-
for-all fashion, but without having first corrected the vessel (kli),
and acquired a screen (masach) which would only let a small amount of
light in, namely that which can be used for the purpose of 'bestowal
to
others'."

Not all religions are the same although hwere you presume they are.
Most do not accept the premise that simply accepting the religion is
sufficient for salvation. In Hinduism, for example, the concept of
karma is one in which our actions have both physical and spiritual
consequences. In order to free ourselves from the cycle of death and
rebirth and move on to higher spiritual realms, one must work
constantly to perfect the body and mind, the vessels of the soul.
It's a religion and it emphatically does not advocate the "simple
reception of spiritual pleasure in a free-for-all fashion".

In the Christian Bible, James 2 has a very powerful message, summed up
in its last verse: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so
faith without works is dead also."

So there are two examples which utterly debunk your erroneous claim
that religion is simply passive acceptance of belief without the
obligation to work at it.

Then after we slog through your simplistic kabbalist catechism and the
straw man argument against a naive form of Christianity which you hold
up as if it's what all Christians believe, we come to this gem of a
conclusion:

"Change the mind, and the body will follow, never the other way
around."

I cited the case of Phineas Gage, a classic case of a physical change
to the brain having radical and permanent changes to the mind.

Here's a more detailed description of the case, which, given your past
behavior, it's likely you won't read or competently address. I could
be wrong, but I'm probably not. We'll see.

http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/the-incredible-case-of-phineas-gage/
Dennes De Mennes
2011-10-01 08:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Here's a more detailed description of the case, which, given your past
behavior, it's likely you won't read or competently address.
phineas gage can kiss my ass. my article stands irregardless of that
piece of garbage.
Tom
2011-09-30 13:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist. religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
You didn't answer my question.

You have said that you're not religious so the errors don't apply to
you.

Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
Dennes De Mennes
2011-10-01 07:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <bd9746fc-aca1-4cd8-867e-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist. religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
You didn't answer my question.
You have said that you're not religious so the errors don't apply to
you.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
I don't think nothing. where do you get this from.
Tom
2011-10-01 14:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <bd9746fc-aca1-4cd8-867e-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist. religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
You didn't answer my question.
You have said that you're not religious so the errors don't apply to
you.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
I don't think nothing. where do you get this from.
Then why do you think errors don't apply to you and what does not
identifying yourself as religious have to do with it?
Dennes De Mennes
2011-10-01 18:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2e48ce39-d4a8-4e1d-8645-987bab281257
@g29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <bd9746fc-aca1-4cd8-867e-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <2fb9765b-1782-4b26-ac50-
Post by Tom
Post by Dennes De Mennes
i'm not the religious one, so the errors don't apply to me.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
i'm a kabbalist, not a religionist. religion is trying to engage in
spirituality without doing the work. a kabbalist does the work.
You didn't answer my question.
You have said that you're not religious so the errors don't apply to
you.
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
I don't think nothing. where do you get this from.
Then why do you think errors don't apply to you and what does not
identifying yourself as religious have to do with it?
because i'm not just blindly believing in something someone on a coat
says. i'm taking the hypothesis that the kabbalist has given me and I'm
testing it out, doing the lab work for myself. deciding for myself what
is true and what is not after i see it working in actuality. religious
just says, ok, i trust what the preacher says--i'm saying no... don't be
mean to the guy, but test out his hypothesis yourself. he wants you to
test it out and to do your own work, and not just follow blindly.
Bassos
2011-09-30 23:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
Nope, i consider everybody to be infallible.

As in: what is there to lose ?

Born with nothing, die with nothing, no loss possible, only gain.

A single experience of someone else because of your stillbirth is more
than nothing.

Hell, even if killed inside the mother with the mother, out in nowhere,
you could still be food.

There is no such thing as failure.

There is expectation though ...
Tom
2011-10-01 02:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
Nope, i consider everybody to be infallible.
As in: what is there to lose ?
Wisely was it written, "Give up learning and put an end to your
problems."

This seems to be the default position.

However, if one insists that others can be in error, one must admit
the possibility of being in error oneself, unless, of course, one
asserts a unique quality of infallibility for oneself not shared by
all. To advance that assertion would require some fancy persuasion.
Bassos
2011-10-01 07:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Do you think you're infallible simply because you have decided that
you're not religious?
Nope, i consider everybody to be infallible.
As in: what is there to lose ?
Wisely was it written, "Give up learning and put an end to your
problems."
ttc 20, a weird verse, i guess i haven't yet found a translation i can
accept as possible.

Where is Joel Biroco when you need him.

Anyone else with a background in chinese and mysticism that translates
ttc 20 'BETTER' than :

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html#20
Post by Tom
This seems to be the default position.
Depends on what 'learning' in ttc 20 would actually mean.
Tom
2011-10-01 15:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Wisely was it written, "Give up learning and put an end to your
problems."
ttc 20, a weird verse, i guess i haven't yet found a translation i can
accept as possible.
There's a wonderful translation by Professor Gu Zhengkun of Beijing
University, called "The Book of Tao and Teh".

He translates this line as "Discard cultural knowledge and worries
disappear."

The translator comments, "With Lao Zi, the progress of science and
technology brought forth by the steady accumulation of knowledge
cannot save mankind from suffering. Rather, knowledge functions as a
hindrance to the realization of the well-being of human beings, though
it may not be a serious crime."
Bassos
2011-10-01 15:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Wisely was it written, "Give up learning and put an end to your
problems."
ttc 20, a weird verse, i guess i haven't yet found a translation i can
accept as possible.
There's a wonderful translation by Professor Gu Zhengkun of Beijing
University, called "The Book of Tao and Teh".
Apparantly no quick and easy free copy online ?
Post by Tom
He translates this line as "Discard cultural knowledge and worries
disappear."
Now, that i like.

What does he make of all the "I" further on in the verse ?
To me it seem it should be something more objectified instead of personal.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.

Seems so egoistic, which is out of touch with, well, the Yellow school.
Post by Tom
The translator comments, "With Lao Zi, the progress of science and
technology brought forth by the steady accumulation of knowledge
cannot save mankind from suffering. Rather, knowledge functions as a
hindrance to the realization of the well-being of human beings, though
it may not be a serious crime."
It would seem i do not care for this commentator.

Knowledge, as you well know, does not exist.

Akin to how 'learning' was a really wrong word to use.
Tom
2011-10-01 18:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
What does he make of all the "I" further on in the verse ?
To me it seem it should be something more objectified instead of personal.
Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.
Seems so egoistic, which is out of touch with, well, the Yellow school.
It's poetry, not exposition.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The translator comments, "With Lao Zi, the progress of science and
technology brought forth by the steady accumulation of knowledge
cannot save mankind from suffering.  Rather, knowledge functions as a
hindrance to the realization of the well-being of human beings, though
it may not be a serious crime."
It would seem i do not care for this commentator.
He is a prominent professor in China. The eye of the government is
upon him, lest he say something politically incorrect.
Post by Bassos
Knowledge, as you well know, does not exist.
He does not use the term in the particular way you and I do.
Post by Bassos
Akin to how 'learning' was a really wrong word to use.
It cannot be the wrong word if you accept the idea that everyone is
infallible. It is merely a different word than you would choose, if
you were capable of translating ancient Chinese characters into
English. That's not a skill you have as yet demonstrated.
Bassos
2011-10-01 22:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
What does he make of all the "I" further on in the verse ?
To me it seem it should be something more objectified instead of personal.
Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.
Seems so egoistic, which is out of touch with, well, the Yellow school.
It's poetry, not exposition.
I like my poetry in prose.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The translator comments, "With Lao Zi, the progress of science and
technology brought forth by the steady accumulation of knowledge
cannot save mankind from suffering. Rather, knowledge functions as a
hindrance to the realization of the well-being of human beings, though
it may not be a serious crime."
It would seem i do not care for this commentator.
He is a prominent professor in China. The eye of the government is
upon him, lest he say something politically incorrect.
Granted, that is an extra issue.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Knowledge, as you well know, does not exist.
He does not use the term in the particular way you and I do.
Me likes my poetry in prose, but then accurate prose.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Akin to how 'learning' was a really wrong word to use.
It cannot be the wrong word if you accept the idea that everyone is
infallible.
Sure, only wrong in context as describing the Way.
Not wrong as an expression; gives us something to talk about anyway.
Post by Tom
It is merely a different word than you would choose, if
you were capable of translating ancient Chinese characters into
English. That's not a skill you have as yet demonstrated.
Indeed, that is why the mock summon of Joel.
(will not bug him over e-mail for this)
Bassos
2011-10-01 22:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The translator comments, "With Lao Zi, the progress of science and
technology brought forth by the steady accumulation of knowledge
cannot save mankind from suffering. Rather, knowledge functions as a
hindrance to the realization of the well-being of human beings, though
it may not be a serious crime."
It would seem i do not care for this commentator.
He is a prominent professor in China. The eye of the government is
upon him, lest he say something politically incorrect.
Granted, that is an extra issue.
Addendum:
Perhaps even the only issue.

There is most likely a reason i use TTC instead of Dao etc.

Is the TTC in fact a true work, or far more a cultural expression of the
best of the chinese ?

ie; should we improve upon it ?

Perhaps that chinese dude was completely correct and the TTC actually
means to adhere to the collective.

Order and peace are big things in China.

Robert Scott Martin
2011-09-28 12:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
I don't think you have to resort to metaphors of sports, alchemy,
optics, and the Gift of Tongues in a single sentence in order to
define the word "religion". Not only are you too complex but you
utterly fail to define the term despite all that. It's like you got
lost somewhere in the middle of the sentence and couldn't find your
way back to the point.
Etymology would've made the point simply enough.

The question then, however, would've been whether gilding the handcuffs
liberates the soul.
Loading...