nothing is gained or lost

[dawei]

Experience would indicate that the senses had touched upon it and the consciousness had grasped it. A concept would be formed relating the concept to all other concepts. Therefore it can be defined in terms of those other concepts and therefore explained to others. Experience isn't isolated it has to be linked to existing knowledge or it could not be known at all. In other words 'experience' would be a divine revelation, or feeling that something is true-which is faith.

 

Your stuck in the senses...   Until your experience is beyond the senses, you just can't grasp the point. 

[3bob]

True what you say 3bob.

 

But still, observing the processes (of Tao) we can arrive at some pretty good theories.  Facts will remain elusive.  There is so much to know and our ability to understand is limited.

 

And true, we cannot define something that is not a thing.  Still holding true:  Those who speak (of Tao) do not know and those who know (we cannot speak of) do not speak.

 

they speak but such is roaring silence that is not so easily heard

[Karl]

Your stuck in the senses...   Until your experience is beyond the senses, you just can't grasp the point. 

 

The point is that you are talking about faith. Call it divine revelation, a flash of knowing, an inner light, intuition, or whatever, but that is what it is. Aquinas put it very well, he certainly did not say that his faith was absent some form of inner 'knowing', 'feeling'. He had to have had some kind of thought/sensation that made him believe in God, even though he could not directly describe God-just as you are unable to describe the Tao.

 

Im most certainly not a sensualist, empiricist or rationalist. I am not a subjectivist of any kind. Perish the thought. :-)

[Marblehead]

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." Is attributed to St Thomas Aquinas regarding religious faith.

But there is a significant difference between the two concepts, isn't there?

[Marblehead]

Your stuck in the senses...   Until your experience is beyond the senses, you just can't grasp the point. 

Yeah, after that post from Karl I'm almost feeling like a Spiritualist.

[Karl]

But there is a significant difference between the two concepts, isn't there?

 

I can't percieve one and I don't know why there needs to be one either. It served the Christian church pretty well for over 2000 years and continues to do so. Taoism looks to me to be a less defined alternative to God. A kind of proto religion maybe ?

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

Yeah, after that post from Karl I'm almost feeling like a Spiritualist.

 

Sorry dude. :-)

[Marblehead]

I can't percieve one and I don't know why there needs to be one either. It served the Christian church pretty well for over 2000 years and continues to do so. Taoism looks to me to be a less defined alternative to God. A kind of proto religion maybe ?

But Christians seem to know what god is whereas honest Taoists admit that Tao is undefinable.

[Karl]

But Christians seem to know what god is whereas honest Taoists admit that Tao is undefinable.

 

:laugh: Honesty is a virtue.

 

Faith is faith though, so if something cannot be defined then it has either to be accepted on faith, or rejected from lack of evidence.

 

[silent thunder]

I could argue, based on my experience growing up in the church, that to one with faith, no explanation is possible, as they have in their own mind, everything figured out and will simply ignore, attack, or refute anything anyone brings to the table that differs from their faith.

 

And to one without faith, no explanation is necessary, as they are open to continuing to explore and learn...

[Marblehead]

:laugh: Honesty is a virtue. Faith is faith though, so if something cannot be defined then it has either to be accepted on faith, or rejected from lack of evidence.

Of based on fact to the contrary.

[3bob]

faith is not a four letter word...

 

there are all sorts of or levels of faith... for instance a parent takes good care of their kid then the kid has reasons and feelings of a kids faith in his parents. There are dozens of simple examples that could be brought up including science having a certain faith in using scientific principles or methods that may be built upon.

Edited January 11, 2016 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Okay.

 

Keep the faith Brother!

[3bob]

ok,  and another example: having faith in doubts until proven otherwise... thus the often half baked connotation "that faith is blind" is false.

Edited January 11, 2016 by 3bob

[Karl]

faith is not a four letter word...

 

there are all sorts of or levels of faith... for instance a parent takes good care of their kid then the kid has reasons and feelings of a kids faith in his parents. There are dozens of simple examples that could be brought up including science having a certain faith in using scientific principles or methods that may be built upon.

 

Yet the child does not have faith in his parents. Up to a certain age he is simply reliant on his parents, once old enough he learns their values and its these values that give him confidence. If values aren't shared, if the parent is abusive and inconsistent, then the child becomes fearful. He does not understand the values, they appear to shift. One day he gets a bike and the next a punch. He can't figure out how this strange world works and so he stops trying.

 

There isn't a 'faith' in science either. It's systematic logic based on sound reason.

[Karl]

ok,  and another example: having faith in doubts until proven otherwise... thus the often half baked connotation "that faith is blind" is false.

 

Faith in doubts ? You are scraping a very empty barely with that one I'm afraid.

[dawei]

The point is that you are talking about faith. Call it divine revelation, a flash of knowing, an inner light, intuition, or whatever, but that is what it is. Aquinas put it very well, he certainly did not say that his faith was absent some form of inner 'knowing', 'feeling'. He had to have had some kind of thought/sensation that made him believe in God, even though he could not directly describe God-just as you are unable to describe the Tao. Im most certainly not a sensualist, empiricist or rationalist. I am not a subjectivist of any kind. Perish the thought. :-)

 

Where am I talking about faith?

 

I simply said to replace it with "experience"... those with experience have need for the crutch of faith.

 

Until you have actual experience, in let's say spiritual pursuits, then it may be hard to even suggest or discuss such issues.

[Karl]

Of based on fact to the contrary.

 

If it's based on fact then it's not faith. To the contrary would be like 'that's a circle because it isn't a square' which would be nonsense.

If something isn't something, then it can either be nothing or something else. Either way it's only ever useful as part of induction in exceptional circumstances and doesn't prove much of anything at all.

[Karl]

Where am I talking about faith?

 

I simply said to replace it with "experience"... those with experience have need for the crutch of faith.

 

Until you have actual experience, in let's say spiritual pursuits, then it may be hard to even suggest or discuss such issues.

 

I'll play as long as it doesn't get nasty. I'm mindful of your accusation that 'I'm stuck in senses" and I know my posts aren't always very welcome. So you know, let's see how it goes.

 

I've had lots of experience of spiritual pursuits. 8 years worth infact, but that hasn't anything to do with what we are discussing.

 

You are saying you have had experience of the Tao, even though the Tao is supposedly beyond any experience. That's surely a dilemma.

So if it wasn't the Tao/because you can't experience the Tao-then it must have been something different to the Tao ?

 

If you indeed did experience the Tao then the books are wrong and you can explain exactly (within reason) what the Tao is. It's colour, shape, smell, sound, texture, location etc then we can all go and marvel at it. Then it wouldn't be faith because more of us would see it and it would be precisely as you described.

 

 

[3bob]

faith in doubts in the sense that they have the potential to be resolved when proven - one way or another for whom the related subject applies to. 

 

I suggest we think outside the box now and then instead of cornering ourselves inside it with un-flexible attachments to our versions of truisms.  

[dawei]

So again... where did I say "Tao"?

 

Your presuming something and putting words in people's mouth and claiming an explanation to fit your theory.  That may be why folks don't welcome your post at times.    Your just not following their comments due to a fetish focus on your own box of thoughts.  Your box is tightly bound so most anyone's comment can't penetrate its thick hull.

 

And maybe we're just too far off topic and I apologize to the OP for pushing it that way.

 

Experience is exactly that.  So let me just ask you:

 

1. Have you ever done mind to mind transmission?

2. Have any psychic ability to hear, see, feel, think another?

3. Have you healed another or been healed by another?

4. Do you know something will happen before it happens... not just once but consistently?

5. Have you ever focused on your body and moved the energy in that area?

6. Have you ever focused on another person's body and moved the energy in that area?

 

I could add a hundred more... I am just sharing experiences.   This is not about faith. That is what I talk about.

 

If I've been off-topic, then I apologize to the direction of the discussion.

[Brian]

I'll add that science is hugely faith-based. Many very bright people are in denial about this but the self-reflective scientist comes to understand it. I think this helps to explain it is not uncommon (in my observation and studies) for such people to rediscover spirituality as life progresses.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

I'll add that science is hugely faith-based. Many very bright people are in denial about this but the self-reflective scientist comes to understand it. I think this helps to explain it is not uncommon (in my observation and studies) for such people to rediscover spirituality as life progresses.

 

If it is then there is no science and we can't know anything for certain. That is what you are saying because we have had that conversation.

[Karl]

So again... where did I say "Tao"?

 

Your presuming something and putting words in people's mouth and claiming an explanation to fit your theory.  That may be why folks don't welcome your post at times.    Your just not following their comments due to a fetish focus on your own box of thoughts.  Your box is tightly bound so most anyone's comment can't penetrate its thick hull.

 

And maybe we're just too far off topic and I apologize to the OP for pushing it that way.

 

Experience is exactly that.  So let me just ask you:

 

1. Have you ever done mind to mind transmission?

2. Have any psychic ability to hear, see, feel, think another?

3. Have you healed another or been healed by another?

4. Do you know something will happen before it happens... not just once but consistently?

5. Have you ever focused on your body and moved the energy in that area?

6. Have you ever focused on another person's body and moved the energy in that area?

 

I could add a hundred more... I am just sharing experiences.   This is not about faith. That is what I talk about.

 

If I've been off-topic, then I apologize to the direction of the discussion.

 

We were discussing the Tao, so if you meant something else I don't know how I could have known ?

 

I can categorically state I haven't done any of those things, but I certainly used to believe I had. Even my wife, a very down to earth and sceptical person began to believe it. I would ask you if you have ever had your skills scientifically verified under lab conditions ? The usual answer to that is getting on for the one Brian just gave. Science can't know everything or science can be wrong.

 

I can tell you that I believed these things were true, very passionately. As passionately as you do now. I defended them, argued the same arguments. What's more people believed what I said, they began to reinforce my own convictions. It became a self fulfilling feedback loop. I did have people go away 'cured' of various mental and physical ailments.

 

The thing about faith is, that when you no longer believe it's faith, then it becomes totally real for that person and those that surround them. That's the trip. That's why very religious people consider themselves beyond faith. It has become reality for them and faith is for those who are starting to climb the ladder to Gods grace.

 

To suggest it's a delusion is to start a war. The world is full of examples of this today. Jihadhists don't have faith, they have intrinsic knowing, a deep abiding truth and they take it to the point of self sacrifice. Jesus sacrificed for us-how much more knowing can one get than to sacrifice for the sins of humanity ?

 

No doubt I've invited a ton of trouble by saying this as it's often seen as being destructive for the sake of self ego. If I said that this is what I believe then I would be accused of having faith as well. What good does it do to pull someone away from their personal truth ? And Is it my delusion or yours ? How do we know which real is real ? Am I as deluded now as I thought I was ? All those things will form the basis for arguments. In the end it comes down to the one question that philosophers have been asking for thousands of years 'How do I know what is real?'

[3bob]

iron is not gold, use the salt test