3bob

dust is a thing thus not origin, that which is in and moves the dust returns to itself where it stands still having never really left except in identification with dust.

we have not covered zombie's yet - dead or alive? (or Elvis for that matter)

FYI, and article by Vamadeva on Hinduism: http://vedanet.com/2014/08/27/is-hinduism-a-monotheistic-religion/

Agreed Dwai, a very important article

Oh, I forgot to mention that we also converse with our cars and boats and feed them various hydro-carbons thus more "truths" that they are alive.

besides we give boats and cars human names and shower them with love so they must be alive

crystals are also alive and growing, so "life" could be defined as vibration and or along the lines of energy - and there is that saying that energy is not created or destroyed it only changes form - there are also energy forms and beings that are invisible to our limited flesh and blood eyes that have a great deal of life - ...and then there is the vibration that is off the scale and un-measureable by any tool, no matter how a fine a tool we may come up with.

. My take: objective laws or truths apply in creation and to creation, but not to the "source" which is a subjective law unto itself.

Thanks for your reply MH. My take on the questions: "Why did Singularity go Bang!?" Because of love that can not be encompassed or contained thus springing forth in unbounded joy, the eureka of eureka's! "What is the purpose of life?" To know and be that eureka without veils or doubt, thus ending further wanderings upon the winds of limited life tied to death, for then death dies and one fully lives.

What I'm trying to get at is that one can not really make a reasonable and logically based final type of claim (whether theist or atheist) about that which reason and logic can not encompass... thus at such a point one can only and honestly claim an agnostic-like position while using such tools. Thus if you, me or anyone else claims to be using reason and logic to make such final type claims then I'll point out that such can not be done... not unlike the idea that Tao that can be named is not the Great or quintessential Tao alluded to per Chapter one of the T.T.C..

MH, In post 126 an often slippery slope is brought up and described by you some of which I agree with, but that does not make it really reasonable by those of us who would try to co-opt reason as a motive and or "the truth" when it is obviously not so when agnostic-like reasoning is not being applied. (which I would further describe as the inherently pending summation that the power of reason will reach when and if it is fully and correctly applied)

One need not know all the mental particulars or "mind" of a true Sage if a Sage reveals their heart 1st hand to a student who can then see same. (which is a greater knowing than intellect or the knowing of one's or the others mental grooves - but will probably be taken as another "fairy tale" by those so inclined and should not be forced in any case anyway)

A lot of very foolish fiddling going on with Sages here !?. Anyone worth their salt either knows a true Sage is one with the Tao, or that they don't know and should thus be open minded and careful with their non-experienced and non-first hand opinions about same until otherwise. (and even careful afterwards)

MH, If you (or anyone else) make various negative generalizations along the lines of "bible thumpers", "fairy tale" believers, "as bad as Christianity", etc.. then in effect you are Atheist thumping whether aimed directly or indirectly at certain targets based on your personal truisms and as if such truisms should obviously be applied to same, Thus I suggest you do not play or proclaim an innocent position in your non-agnostic like statements (per said examples given in the first sentence above) against those that have practices or beliefs different from your self-stated "atheist" and "materialistic" type ones.

Mods, might as well move this string to the pit along where the other example of it landed... btw, I earlier submitted that it should be in the Hindu sub-forum but since certain Buddhists are in attack mode here the string has proven futile, negative and destructive for both the Buddhist and Hindu sub-forums.

MH, In case you haven't noticed you are not showing much difference from a so called Bible thumper with your Atheist thumping, which you have repeatedly and in effect said you will not "empty" your mind of along with the prejudices and preferences that go with it. hehehehe p.s. also and imo the best "we" can do in the meantime is recognize an agnostic-like position when we are in it, a position which does not need to be created since such is often the present, although still workable and simply the honest fact for many of us - while we try to listen to and understand a Sage like Lao Tzu who points to an end of our consuming doubts and or its more subtle argumentive devices.

a stronger example of buggy or being bugged is the major stretch of using the framework of the T.T.C. as if it had anything to do with core Atheist beliefs such as those related to death. The T.T.C. has many chapters pointing directly to deathlessness of the Sage, etc.. while the Atheism I hear being thumped about and with various implications onto peoples heads is their professed "god" of death.

Obviously: Atheism and Theism are beliefs with no provable proofs per a universally accepted standard for either one, thus and imo to be REASONABLE, LOGICAL and simply honest about either belief one would have to admit through common sense recognition that one is an agnostic like position; - that is until one has 1st hand proof regarding same for themselves, which btw they can still not force upon or prove to anyone else using the tools of logic, reason and a related universally accepted standard since such does not exist. To say otherwise would amount to some variation or form of illogic and unreasonableness that could become dogmatic to fanatical in either case.

MH, Anyone that has been here awhile knows of your personal preference for an atheist/materialistic take on Taoism - but that in no way represents all of Taoism including what you are calling "philosophical" Taoism since the religious/shamanistic/alchemic forms of Taoism also include aspects that are not divorced from philosophy that is related to the teachings. So even if one prefers an atheist take on Taoism that is their business but when one attempts to define other aspects of Taoism that they may have no experience with then imo one should be at least agnostic-like about it since that is the obvious and self-stated condition of their present experience and knowledge. also, leaving out Taoist related teachings like the one below would also "confuse" newcomers: "Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal Although Yu-huang is the High God, there are other abstract deities above him. He rules; they simply exist and instruct. First and foremost is Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun - the First Principal. He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth." Note: in the context above such is not created by a human being as you more or less sarcastically put it earlier. Btw, imo and via historical texts and artifacts Buddhism (per and as founded by the historic Buddha) is a very young newcomer on the scene compared to Taoism. As for possible mix-ups or misunderstandings between Christianity and Taoism I can see your points. Later, Bob

MH, Actually Taoism and many Chinese related practices have all sorts of gods or god type beings woven into its fabric and throughout its very, very old history! So imo you do disservice to that aspect of Taoism with a dogmatic anti-reaction to such terms and or the Beings that you clearly indicate in having no experience with. (while who knows how many thousands of other Taoist people for thousands of years have had such experiences 1st hand) Thus per same one is really out of luck if one wants to limit this to an only anti-religious materialist Taoist sub-forum as you imply as being your personal preference.

(I'm getting away from Taoist context but...) Hi Manitou, I think you well know that how or when we use the term "they" such often becomes a slippery slope; or can easily become another form of reaction as you've brought up above in other ways. Thus if one will - one might ask or ponder on an analogy of how the "Eye of God" sees us and all these other beings? (for instance does such vision separate out them from us?) Further, once an extremely small mote has pierced that extremely great "Eye of God" how does it then perceive?

different wavelengths of light or energy are at different speeds, the fastest is at the last threshold of possible measurement while after return there is no measure.

try the analogy of a prism with white light on one side and colors on the other side, if those colors return to the white light side they no longer remain colors because of the transformation of said a return. Now take "Mystery" with it being on one side and white light coming out the other - when that light returns it to transforms. Only Mystery never really left and always remains while all the rest are her connected and changing children who are coming and going.

Somewhat of an analogy related to: "Why practice?" The pain of relative disconnection is or can build-up to greater degrees than the pain of practice which reduces such disconnection; also falling per gravity takes no effort but being crushed by it begs a response, thus to climb against it takes measured effort and in the end supreme effort, which once completed is effortless -

in the sense that the first is also the last, so even the One returns.