XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   {:-])))  wrote:   
   > Tang wrote:   
   >   
   >> Kant, The Conflict of Faculties, VII, 63: “Because if God   
   >> really spoke to man, the latter however could never know   
   >> that it is God who speaks to him. It is absolutely   
   >> impossible that man should grasp the infinite by his   
   >> senses, distinguish it from sensible beings and thereby   
   >> recognize it [Denn wenn Gott zum Menschen wirklich   
   >> spräche, so kann dieser doch niemals wissen, dass es   
   >> Gott sei, der zu ihm spricht. Es ist schlechterdings   
   >> unmöglich, dass der Mensch durch seine Sinne den   
   >> Unendlichen fassen, ihn von Sinnenwesen unterscheiden,   
   >> und ihn woran kennen solle].”   
   >>   
   >> Dry, intellectual talk, but easy enough to relate to. Just   
   >> think of the uncarved whole.   
   >   
   > When I think of an uncarved whole, a Tao appears in mind.   
   > Tao does not make things yet things can be said to grow.   
   >   
   > One emerges from, or is birthed, given: Tao.   
   > Being arises from Nonbeing. There's nothing personal there.   
   >   
   > When I think of God, Abraham's dude, with whom he talked,   
   > and cut up some lamb or goat to dine with, someone shows up.   
   > The dude shows up from time to time and at times abides.   
   >   
   > To threaten what appears to be a man or three on the way to find   
   > out if tales are true concerning two cities, with a knife, may   
   > be done all in fun, until it isn't, if it's true.   
   >   
   > If there actually was a fourth in the oven, along with   
   > those three of Daniel's buddies, then there was.   
   >   
   > Dry, intellectual talk is fine, and easy to relate to.   
   >   
   > Some myths people take as being more real than others uttered.   
   > Many people believe things exist as other than mere myths.   
   > And many myths actually do.   
   >   
   > Encountering an actual manifestation of some entity   
   > in its most godly or ungodly form might make one a believer.   
   >   
   > Kant had something he spoke of.   
   > Moses saw and heard something he spoke with.   
   >   
   > Krishna and Kali make a fine pair.   
   > And then there's Shiva and Vishnu as two.   
   >   
   > Atman/Brahman is a form of what some call true.   
   > There's nothing personal about such poo or woo.   
   >   
   > - siddhis and realities vary   
   >   
      
   Lots of hidu-studies lately?  I never really got into hinduism, too many   
   barriers-to-entry so to speak.  Missing cultural background maybe, who   
   knows, it just didn't make enough sense to keep me reading.   
      
   I happen to know about the dude who abides, and the dude whose carpet got   
   pissed on.  Never read a Tale Of Two Cities though.  The point being that   
   references which draw on presumed common knowledge may not work as well if   
   they're from a 1-series TV show three decades ago.   
      
   Here's what I'd like to know: why does philosophy always end up at God,   
   just like most internet debates end up talking about Hitler?   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)