East/West Differences

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
121

:wink:
You sure about that experience part?

Actually, it’s funny you should ask.

I’m not sure who wrote this, but I was going to point out that I think Nietzsche actually got the idea for the Will to Power from a certain buddhist philosophy which teaches to let go of earthly pleasures, but also to remain socially interactive. Now… N is the man, don’t get me wrong, but when it comes to actually -living- life I feel like too many takes his writing/teaching as way too literal.

Nietzsche exists in the past and so according to his writing to be in control of his ideas, we must control our future. This is about evolve. The world changes, and has since the time N wrote. Personally I believe it is intregral to move PAST his ideas like he suggests, and so evolve them, with ourselves. I took TPZ as a launching point, to which I’ve since stepped back and said “hey… -personally- I think the WTP can be achieved not by actional ‘evils’ to promote action, but rather by attempting to know myself so well that when others experience it, they see a type of evil within themselves, and for those with that much of a vision at least, hopefully they are promoted into action”

This is my point, the reason why that quote sounded so strange. ‘Personal Irrelevancies’ are not only -not- irrevelant, but intregral as in issues like this, personal information is paramount. That is what religion is, it’s personal interaction with the world. TPZ, the Tao, yeah we need these things as references, but they should be only that. Lighthouses in the fog of our transient search to ground us when we get too far of course.

To be honest I haven’t read a whole lot about eastern philosophy other than the Tao and seeing movies like ‘Hero’ and whatnot but I’m finding it more and more fascinating. I’ve sort of been watching this thread and the other one… but I don’t really feel qualified to talk in any real capacity…

122

Old_Gobbo

You sir are no less qualified to speak on this than any of the rest of us. I think I can speak fairly accurately for any of us “Eastern” mindful people when saying that the beauty is to be shared, and everyone’s level of understanding is taken into account fairly, and that is the summation of meaning of what we are all doing here.

liquidangel is far more erudite in the subtleties of Tao than I, and tenative has an undeniable acumen with the logic and it’s predispostion to understanding. I learn continually from both, and most of my posting exercises are to draw more understanding from them… metaphysical vampire style.

No reason you, aspacia, or anyone else interested can’t share. I find your insights useful and thought provoking. kin.

123

Mastriani

Very sorry, I won’t sling such stones at you in the future!

Yes, here again. See you’ve said something, but then,

You immediately qualify it so that we don't think you talked with his ghost or that he invented a time-machine and came to the present to have tea with you. You mean 'he is still there' in a limited qualified way, and not to put words in your mouth, but when most people would say such a thing, they would mean "he is still there in a sense, despite his being quite dead [i]and gone[/i] in fact."  You would never go out of your way to say that when you visit the White House, it seems as though Bush is still there, or that as you sit in your chair reading the screen, it is as though your computer is there. Because it is. It [i]actually[/i] is. 
So that's what I mean when I say the 'usual way'. If we want to know how to seperate the artist from the art, we simply stop overlooking the utterly obvious seperation that made us feel the need to point out they aren't seperated!

Well, a painting [i]is[/i] a set of dyes. Surely it is much more than that, and surely there are deep connections between the painting and the painter. But the fact that a painting is a set of dyes (and a man is not) is enough for distinction. 
In other words, the way in which you seem to mean "All are One" does not seem to conflict with the way in which I mean "God and Man are two completely different things".
124

LOL, Ucci brother, I was with you all the way up to this paragraph, and then you threw the slider while I was watching the pretty Asian girl in the stands:

Help?

125

Now don’t tell me to piss off, I read you and Gobo’s posts there.

I see you got a little uneasy with what’s written for aspacia. Don’t take it out on Gobo, k? He just wrote a fine piece there himself.

I’m not entirely sure of the reason, but I have a feeling that you, Mastriani, got a bit bitter that I didn’t amuse yourself with yet another fun tale. Well, what you know? Uniqor never, ever, disappoints the fans. So here you go - a continuation from yesterday’s story.

It’s bad, man, I’m warning you, read at your own risk. It’s almost as if a humor failure…

126

Mastriani,

Actually, there needs to be less explanation. The Tao written and the Way are part of a processual universe with fluid interaction and transactions within all that is. One must ‘see’ and internalize this in order to begin stripping away rather than adding on.

I have nothing further to offer.

JT

127

tenative:

My wording was bad, perhaps I should have asked for “rephrasing”.

“A life of a hundred years, lived blindly, is a trajedy. An enlightened life, if only lasting one day, is a triumph.” Yip Man

Well done.

128

Mastriani

 What I mean is this: When you say Michelangelo is still in the Sistine Chapel, I can understand that without thinking you mean something about ghosts or time-travel.  When you say God and man are One, I can understand that without understanding you to mean pantheism. In other words, I can go on believing that Michangelo is dead and gone and God and Man are two different things, without thinking you're wrong. Now, if you wanted to say that God and Man aren't two different things (in the way that implies pantheism or atheism), or that Michaelangelo travelled through time to have tea with you, you'd need to make completely different statements than you have made to support those ideas.
129

No offense to Ucci or aspacia, but you have both used the term “pantheism” in reference to my posts, and I can yet find no reference to multiple deities?

Where exactly is this coming from? Explain please.

130

One point I wish to contend with tenative: internalizing.

For the Taoist, this is not a viable scenario. What is without is already contained within.

When duality and desire are no longer present, the outer is made inner, inner made outer, in concord of the Way.

131

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

132

The original word -pantheon- is far from that skewed definition. I reject Wikipedia.

[b]pantheon

all deities of specific religion: all the deities of a people or religion considered collectively.[/b]

ie. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Pagans did not have a single, all inclusive deity, they had many. The definition you gave is a latter bastardization of the original.

133

I only posted because I am something of a pantheist, by the definition given by Wikepedia and most every source I know of, from the ancient Greeks (pan and theos meaning everything is God), through Spinoza on forward and, most relevant here, the definition I would imagine was meant by both Ucc and Aspacia. It occurred to me that the matter of the definition of the word was important to the conversation.

Sorry for the interruption. I should have let Ucc and Aspacia speak for themselves.

You are of course free to use whatever definition you wish to use…

134

I must be leaning towards a foul mood. Everything is starting to piss me off.

Interruption? When does a thread become proprietary to a “clique” or group? Isn’t everyone welcome?

Fuck it, I’m out for awhile, maybe a long while.

135

I interrupted the flow of the conversation and answered where Ucc and/or aspacia should have answered. It’s not a matter of “proprietary.” I tried to help where it appears help was unwanted. If I’ve contributed somehow to pissing you off I am sincerely sorry. That was not my intent.

136

My apologies, and to the person who said this.

Regardless, is Tao a form of pantheism???

With regards,

aspacia

137

M

No. But I’ll leave it at that. :slight_smile:

138

This is from Websters: pantheism 1. The doctrine identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature. 2. A belief in and worship of all gods.

I tend to accept the first definition and discount the second, as most of my religious studies instructors described the second as polytheism.

Again, is Tao a form of pantheism described in the first definition?

I hope this clears the confusion, I never meant polytheism.

Smiles,

aspacia

139

but they use woks in china…

-Imp

140

No, Tao is not a form of pantheism, nor is it a religion, nor is it a doctrine, nor is it an it.

It is very difficult for me to even begin to explain what it is. It is not something that I am capable of describing.

I can only elude to it. It is the thing that makes your heart beat, it is the thing that causes the flowers to grow. It is the thing that gives life to all, yet it is no-thing and it is all. In a human being it is your True Nature or perhaps it is better to say that it is the Source of your True Nature.

Perhaps this chapter from Lau Tsu will help you.

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.

  • Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching

Now back to the East/West debate…