注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

论老子

道,领导也。领导必需要不断呼唤,教导下属以及以身作则。下属的过和错皆因领导懒惰。

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Wake up! Stop being fooled by Zhuangzi and Hui Neng  

2013-10-09 20:14:31|  分类: The Truths |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
        Rebuttal #1: [哈哈,self-proclaimed prophet]. Why do you make such an irresponsible comment? Please go through all my translations and point out a single fault in my translation. I appreciate it very much. At least it will make my translations more refine. No! No! Not this kind of irresponsible comment. With this comment, do you try to discredit me? Or bring discredit to yourself, Mr. Eng Shing Poong.

Rebuttal #2: [God create everything including all the dirts within human minds?] Why don’t you confront your mother and tell her off, “Mom, you gave birth to me and all the shit that goes in my mind.”  You are behaving like a person with otak udang (a Malay phrase: The brains of the prawn is nothing but full of shit).

Rebuttal #3: [U are interpreting Laozi,Zhuangzi and etc。in the name of God。。。] What make you think my interpretation with DaoDeJing and Zhuangzi most sly, cunning and crafty works that destroyed Laozi’s master-piece with God? All because of the 81 chapters I translated these chapters accurately as how Laozi tried to describe the creation of the universe. (I know you wrote a book trying to mix and match Zhuangzi’s work with Hui Neng with Zen Buddhism as the thyme. You have got your theme for 《道德经》 dead wrong and yet, you are now, a bad loser.) Please let me let the cat out. If you were to type 道in zdic.net, there are 12 different meanings for 道. After reading Laozi’s only piece of work《道德经》, I found that there should be two more other meanings. One, 道 means God, implied from partitioning the word 道 as a leader and everybody else follows Him, put in the context of the universe with the assumption, there is a Creator of the universe. Two, 道 also means leadership, as a leader and everybody else follows him, either within an organization or he has a mere subordinate. Zdic.net can argue that these two other meaning cannot be added to its list of 12 meanings. Or they would add them on later. You certainly do not qualify to make your recommendations to zdic.net.

Rebuttal #4: [U sound like a modern prophet。。。。] Let me ask you honestly, “Can I be one?” Who do you think I am? Who do you think, I am not? This is a personal blog (1522 readers) published my other personal blog, url http://yuzhouchuangzaozhe.blog.163.com Please read sub-section, “中国而今有圣人”.

Rebuttal #5: [God create 64 Amino-acids that form Universal Genetic Code。。。] Finally, you agree that there is such a thing called, God and you even wrote, this piece of information crystal clear, “God create 64 Amino-acids …” I beg your pardon, I do not agree with you. May I choose to disagree? Why? This is because I really don’t know if God had created these 64 Amino acids. It seems to me you know God much better than me. You can even pin-point God created 64 Amino acids.

Rebuttal #6:    [God create the 64 卦in Yijing。。。。] Again, I beg your pardon, I do not agree with you. May I choose to disagree? Why? This is because I really don’t know if God had created these 64卦in 易经(Yijing). It seems to me you know God much better than me. You can even pin-point God created 64卦.

Rebuttal #7: [God create humans that fight among themselves,especially,between Islam and Christianity,because they interpret differently,One as son of God another only as a prophet…] Again, this is your very personal wild accusation. Why don’t you confront your mother and blame her for giving birth to you and your siblings and therefore, you often fought among your siblings. Please stop this kind of unsubstantiated accusations if you do not want people to throw stones at you. The readers of this posting are laughing at you now.

Rebuttal #8: [Why God is more careless than humans when he create them….] I pardon you for asking me this question. Why? This is because you could not even understand the first chapter of 《道德经》. Let me be point out to you the second half of chapter one, “无名天地之始。有名万物之母。故常无欲以观其妙。常有欲以观其徼。此两者同出而异名,同谓之玄。玄之又玄,众妙之门。”Note: I know this very clearly nobody ever gets the true meaning of this statement right. This is the first time you are reading its exact meaning because Zhuangzi had completely destroyed or removed the concept of God from 《道德经》.

Here it is: 宇宙将要开始形成的哪一刻,哪来什么物体。是有了宇宙创造者之后,所有其他的东西都是祂所创造出来的。在创造过程中,祂时常保持以一种不想要得到什么成果或想达到某种目的的心态去观察宇宙里一切的东西(也包括无形的东西)的种种美妙之处;同时祂也时常希望观察一些希望得到不应该得的成果。这两种不同的心态同样是出自祂的一颗好奇的心(备注:每一个科学家都是抱着这样的一颗好奇心),这两者只不过是用上了不同的名称而已.这两种心态同样是叫做玄妙,是深奥不容易理解的玄妙,也就是说一切深奥玄妙的道理以及众多的奇巧和妙趣的事情,一一从这个窍门或途径而得来的。

This is the answer your question, “Why God is more careless than humans when he create them?” No! He is just like any scientist, who during the creation process wanted to know how His creation behaves. There are two broad categories of the properties exhibited by all His creations. One, He expects some form of outcomes/properties but fails to see them. He did not expect to see some properties that somehow surfaced in His creation. This is clearly explained in [此两者同出而异名] or in modern Chinese这两种不同的心态同样是出自祂的一颗好奇的心。I know you will disagree irrespective of what I write. Please go to this blog to read carefully how I translate each and every word of this chapter. At url http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/181911362201172364442388/

Rebuttal #9: [When you do statistical analysis with Calculator or computer,you also deny that these tools are man-made?] You have learned one of the nastiest behaviors of mankind; that is, putting words in somebody else’s mouth. When did I ever mention, “I deny that calculator and computer are man-made?”

Rebuttal #10: [Tagore,the first Asian from India to win a Nobel Prize in literature once said,“If God ever create the cosmos,He would be more confused than ever when He turn around and look at the wonder of his creation..."] What make you think Tagore’s statement is correct? You love people who put up all kinds of Zen statements. When a Nobel Prize winner in literature made a statement about science or cosmology, and yet you believe in him! OMG! You are a most befuddled person who does not understand that he is utterly NOT qualified to make such a statement.

Rebuttal # 11: [I appreciate your mental power but not the stuff you wrote,especially,about Dao De jing, Hui Neng, Zhuangzi…] First, I sincerely thank you for your kind appreciation. Second, if you think you cannot agree with my writings, well, it is perfectly normal. It is almost impossible to wash away the toxic contamination out of the mind of a person who is steeply inclined in Zhuangzi’s and Hui Neng’s works. Especially, I am putting these two people down as scum. I am insulting your idols, really. Your pride does not allows you to do so, am I right?

Rebuttal #12: [China then is called 天下,which is not the state of China as it is now。] This shows you have a close mind. Today, China is not天下, I agreed with you 100%. But this does not means the principles taught in 《道德经》can be applied to the world today. Please read第九章:道者为心,心者为道 of my book 《领导之道》,at url http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/18191136220129120408155/

Rebuttal #13: [Believe in what Buddha says not what others say about Buddha.] I asked you to give me what are the teachings of Lord Sakyamuni Buddha. Yet, until now I did not see or hear anything from you. Hmmm! How am I going to respect your words? Talk Only, No Action.

Rebuttal #14: [The 24 sages,gods or whatever you call them were not found in Agama Sutra…] Are you telling me the Agama Sutra tells everything? I beg your pardon. 你是一个标准的“死读书,读死书”的人。再或者你是一个“我只读我要读的书,我不会去看我不想看的书。”

Rebuttal #15: [In fact I wish I would scrutinize your artificial synthesis of Dao De Jing in full.]  I cannot comprehend what has gone wrong with your personal development (修养).  When you have not even read my works you already gave it such an unkind adjective, artificial synthesis.

Rebuttal #16: [I put Zhuangzi in the category of Chan rather than Dao Jia and daojia道家has nothing to do with 道教that emerged in the later part of the Chinese history. They are all culprits of the worst kind as I view them] You are absolutely right with your statement, “They are all culprits of the worst kind as I view them.” While I listed Zhuangzi as the first and the most detrimental culprit to Laozi’s work, I also put Chan (Zen) as a form that bastardized the teachings of Buddhism. I can understand your love for anything Chan (Zen). When you can’t even write a few statements about the true teachings Lord Sakyamuni Buddha, I empathize how toxic Zen philosophy/teachings had gone into your mind.

Rebuttal #17: [The word “God” is not the magic touch to convert everything to Gold as with the witch craft of the old days.] I pardon you for making this irresponsible statement. This is because you do not understand the true meaning of《道德经》第4章:[道冲而用之或不盈。渊兮,似万物之宗。拙其锐,解其纷,和其光,同其尘。湛兮似或存,吾不知谁之子,象帝之先。] as is shown in your yesterday’s comment on the same posting.

Here is the full translation. [上帝这一个名词,我们必须要很谦虚以及谨慎的使用它,即使是我们当中一些人需要应用它,但是使用它的次数过于少。祂就是所有事物的本原啊!因为就是祂创造宇宙中所有的万物,所以祂是大家必须要互相谦让的一个高度争论的焦点;我们必要和解这一个争执不下的事情;我们更要和谐地大家一起同样的赞美祂,承认祂以及共享祂的荣耀;而且我们对上帝的说法不应该有什么差异,即使是有差异的话,也只是一个非常微小的差异。

清澈见底的说嘛!虽然我不能够确定是祂,也许又不敢怎样表明祂的存在,因为我不知道谁比祂更早,在我的想象中祂就是在先的第一个,而祂就是上帝。]

Do you know now why you wrote, “Please talk sensibly when you compare cultures and religions”? Chapter 4 of 《道德经》 had clearly explained to you that the word, God is NOT to be used lightly or irresponsibly.

Rebuttal #18: [Dao De Jing shouldn't be studied in isolation or separately verse by verse but should be scrutinized as a coherent whole.] I appreciate this comment. Well, may I ask, “What is the theme of Dao De Jing? If someone were to read a book without first grasping its theme, he shall never be able to understand the author’s writing. Don’t you agree with me? When I have got the theme right, I went on with a rigorous procedure to first understand each word individually, if I could not, I look at how a word is paired with its adjacent text, then I go on to read the full phrase and finally the whole statement. Well, when I am carrying the above rigorous procedure, I always have the theme in mind. Is this not the right way to read a book, especially when it is written in classical Chinese? How can you “scrutinize as a coherent whole” when you have not first gotten the theme right and the meaning of each word or pair of words or a phrase or statement right? Can you demonstrate to me how you interpret chapter 77 [天之道,其犹张弓与。高者抑之,下者举之。有馀者损之,不足者补之。天之道,损有馀而补不足。人之道,则不然,损不足以奉有馀。孰能有馀以奉天下,唯有道者。是以圣人为而不恃,功成而不处。其不欲见贤邪!] In order not to break your thought, I attached my English translation below. If you give up, you can refer to http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/1819113622012742503987/

He who leads for the sake of everyone in the world is akin to a game of archery where he shoots arrows with a bow at a target (target archery). To those people whose standard of living is higher than the average, it is necessary to suppress their standard of living a little. To those people whose standard of living is far below that of the average people, it is necessary to raise their standard of living. It is absolutely necessary for the higher income earners to pay income tax. On the contrary, the low income earner or people with no income should be supplemented with subsidies or financial help or corresponding assistances.

He who leads for the sake of the people taxes the relatively wealthy and thus, subsidizes the poor. On the contrary, he who leads for the sake of his personal interests does not do likewise; he tries to inflict greater losses to those who are already poor to benefit those who are already rich.

Who has more resources (not just financial resources alone) than the average person and dedicate himself to all the people in the world? Answer: Only a true leader can. Therefore, when a sage executes the above tasks of a redistribution of wealth, he does not show-off his ability/authority and disdains the others. When he had successfully completed this duty and yet, he does not appropriate all the credits to himself at all because he has no selfish desire in the first place and hence, proved his virtue and kindnesses.

Rebuttal # 19:  [I don't dispute what you claimed to be but we want genuine thoughts of Laozi to be interpreted as it is not as what it ought to be.] By going through a rigorous procedure I had translated DaoDeJing to the best that I could. I am afraid you are expecting me to translate it as it ought to be in accordance with your line of thought, sadly, which is a bastardized concoction of Zen and Zhuangzi’s sly and crafty statements that were proven wrong, not by me by Albert Einstein. Yet, you prefer to stick to your blatant statement of denial in your reply, “You cannot use the theory of relativity to explain (Zhuangzi’s) philosophy.” Before the word science was created, perhaps, in the 18 century, the word philosophy has always been the standard bearer, namely, philosophy is about knowledge.      

Rebuttal #20: [The sequence of 道、德,仁、义and then 礼 is clearly explained coherently not in the way that U claim it to be. Firstly, dao cannot be expressed but can be understood by way of communication.] I accept your comment with an open heart, “not in the way that U claimed it to be”. Please show me where I have gone wrong. Please let me learn something from you. You cannot with one stroke brushes everything away with explaining a single word of the five Chinese characters. Second, “dao cannot be expressed” means what? Does it mean you cannot express the meaning of dao? I can understand this when you reject the 13th and 14th meaning of the word, 道 should be God and leadership since zdic.net had not added these two in its dictionary yet. When I added these two other meanings of道, my translation of the entire book, namely 《道德经》was completed in 33 months. As of now, you who denied these two additional meaning of the word道, you are still unable to grasp what is the meaning of the first chapter. Please refer to rebuttal #8.

Rebuttal #21: [为道日损is unlearning,...] I don’t know how to point out where you have gone wrong. Definitely, 为道日损 is not unlearning. You have certainly made a big leap forward by interpreting classical Chinese and immediately write down its English equivalent. You presume you can do a time travel to understand classical Chinese written back 2,500 years ago and modern English. Btw, I bet you could not understand much about William Shakespeare’s English which was written in the 16th century.

Rebuttal #22: [The trouble of U as a“so-called” spiritual leader is you want to interpret in the way of what it should be;U have super-imposed your magic of “God” into the dao philosophy of Laozi.] First, please point out exactly where I have gone wrong, even if I have written a single wrong word or had made an error in my translations. I appreciate it very much. Please do not apply a motherhood statement. Second, what makes you think the dao philosophy of Laozi is not relevant to the search of knowledge about God? I can understand where you come from. You love Zhuangzi so much, especially his statement [无极生太极] (The universe was created out of absolutely nothingness) which I had subsequent proven wrong using Albert Einstein’s famous theory of relativity, E= mc2. You agreed with me Zhuangzi was dead wrong with this statement [无极生太极], but somehow, you still can’t accept your idol is a sly and crafty bull-shitter.

Rebuttal #23: [Don't misunderstand 邻国 as states like Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesian, etc. The divided 天下of春秋战国cannot be compared with the various states in China as they exist now.] This statement shows you are a person whose power of conceptualization and practical application is severely limited by the book. Please read rebuttal #12 or please read第九章:道者为心,心者为道 of my book 《领导之道》,at url http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/18191136220129120408155/       

Rebuttal #24: [To Laozi Dao even preceded the existence of 天帝,which is not to be taken as creator.] I beg your pardon. I beg to reject your argument because you did not give me any further detail to support your claim. Please point to me which particular word or phrase in 《道德经》that support your argument. Btw, as far as I know you did not accept there is such a word in 《道德经》that refers to God. How could you read Laozi’s mind that he believes 道 even preceded the existence of God? I bet this idea must have come from Zhuangzi’s infamous statement  [无极生太极] (The universe was created out of absolutely nothingness) . 

Rebuttal #25: [The Oneness of God as found in the Bible(Old and New Testaments)or Quran is not relevant in the thoughts of Laozi and Kongzi and others.]  I can accept this argument for the time being. Why? When the Chinese people (which you wrote beautifully the people of the Shang and Zhou dynasties believes in the oneness of God) are cheated by Zhuangzi’s infamous statement [无极生太极] (The universe was created out of absolutely nothingness) and later, the illiterate Hui Neng’s construction of a new lineage of Zen Buddhism, I bet almost all Chinese who does not profess faith in Islam or Christianity do not think their cultural heavyweights, Laozi or Confucius believed in the same concept as the oneness of God. Even the Muslims or Christians (both Chinese and none Chinese) could not agree to this statement of mine: Both Laozi and Confucius are messengers of God sent to China, much in the same light as all the prophets that were sent down to the Middle East. This statement will hit you the hardest. All the incarnations sent to the continent of India are messengers of God. I know you are not God or His prophet. Hence, you cannot write these two statements off as untruth. Where is your authority?    

Rebuttal #26: [As I explained before,scientists made studies after the Big Bang not before. Even Hawking said nothing about Space time before The Big Bang and so is Einstein. Comparing parts of the Dao De Jing with the experimental results of modern fields of quantum mechanics and Genetics] Sorry, I have to white-wash this claims of your. Even today, the community of scientists is arguing until the cows come home whether there is such thing called, Big Bang.  To me, the Big Bang theory is the works of Zen scientists. I could be wrong. Hawking disagree with the Big Bang theory. Now scientists are working on the Hobson’s particles which does away with the Big Bang theory. 

Rebuttal #27: [不知”既是指这个层次的慧,与道融合为一的精神境界。那即是“感悟”的境界,intuitive and insightful state of mind==不知.] Please do not make motherhood statement. Please indicate exactly where I have gone wrong in my translations. All my translations wre published in my personal blog ericwoonct.blog.163.com under section 《领导之道》. Please point out the specific word or phrase that I have gone wrong. I can appreciate you better.

Rebuttal #28: [在薄伽梵歌里,又被称为paramatma,超灵)。老子的无为而无不为即使如此的意思。] This is horrendous interpretation. 无为而无不为 means the same as paramatma ,超灵.  Here is my translation for 无为而无不为, “当他明白社稷已经达到了他不可以为所欲为的局面,他也知道没有什么事情他是不能够以领导的方式去执行而办妥的。”or in English,“By then, he realized the state of affairs has reached a stage where it is not possible for him to carry out anything willfully all for the sake of his personal interests. At this level of excellence under his leadership, when there is a need to perform something regardless of what the task is, he can easily get it implemented successfully.” Detail at url http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/1819113622012625113847899/

What has this got to do with paramatma, 超灵? This is truly mind-boggling.

Rebuttal #29: [可以譬喻释尊是God of Non-God。世尊取涅盘,与宇宙合一了,没有微细惑。他的识体已化为知识体了,wisdom body.] This is something new to me. It seems you are very good at playing Lego with words. First you admit there is God. Now, you throw any spanner saying there is such thing as God of Non-God. May I ask the same simple question, “How 释尊 or God of Non-God comes into being? Please do not evade elusively like a snake. Somehow, it looks too fishy to me. Why is there a God of Non-God then? What does the first word, God means, ignoring the phrase Non-God? Remember, Lucifer or Satan is a snake or serpent as in Bible. To me, it is very obvious, God of non-God is Lucifer. He is against God. He has only one intention that is to cheat all mankind that there is no such thing as God, the Creator of the universe. Lucifer loves this statement if you were to say that Lucifer is the God of all of those who believes there is no God by there exist a God of Non-God, who is none other than Lucifer. You are one of the many pathetic people who meditate and somehow were taken controlled by Lucifer or his gang who often appears as 释尊 while you meditate. Now, I understand what you saw during your period of meditation. They are the imitators of the Lord Sakyamuni Buddha or Lord Amitabha or etc.         

Rebuttal #30: [Scientists don't disprove God‘s existence because they see the God of Non-God,the Dharma Form of Buddha(Dharma Kayaa-法身).] This statement really makes you into a laughing stalk. No scientist would want to defend your statement, “they see the God of Non-God”. No scientist dares to say he see the God of Non-God. Why? He cannot provide any proof that the God of Non-god exist. This is in the same light as up until now, scientists cannot prove the existence of God. The second statement is even more atrocious to the community of scientists. Which scientist ever says and provides prove that there is such thing called, Dharma Form? You are about to being the entire community of scientists down with your Zen scientific argument.   

Rebuttal #31: [the main issue of Dao De Jing:道生一,一生二,二生三。三生万物。The un-manifested is the Dao,无极。The first appearance of cosmos is一,positive proton body。Then the Big Bang giving rise to yin and yang。There are basically four “二”here,00,01,10,11,the components of 八卦 and 64卦 as万物。These four are also the four basic Amino-acids which later formed The 64 Universal Genetic Codes,giving rise to the emergence of living things。When Laozi says 万物,he actually means living things.] I really take my hats off to you. Question 1: dao (道) is 无极. This is does not exist in zdic.net. It only appears in Zhuangzi’s statement, 无极生太极.  Question 2: positive proton body is the first to appear in the cosmos. You must be a very sick Zen scientist. Scientists now are looking into the Hobson’s particles which could explain how energy transforms into matter. Yet, they are no sure yet if this is the ‘holy grail’ particle of god that they are looking for. It is meaningless for me to question “How the Amino acids came into being?”

Rebuttal #32: [You are still very much attached to the God of All Gods,not to the God of Non-God like Shakyamuni Buddha.] I beg your pardon. Even the Buddhist community would like to throw stones at you because you equate Shakyamuni Buddha to the God of Non-God. For all I know, Lord Buddha would cry pathetically because you had made him in the same class as Lucifer, the Biblical figure who denies the existence of God but himself, the God of Non-God. Note: I have already explained dinosaur was a mere creation by Lucifer to fool mankind. So does the word, God of Non-God. Now I start to understand why the Hindus, especially those who read the Bhagavad Gita denounce Buddhism. It is over this statement.  Lord Sakyamuni is the God of Non-God. When in actual fact, they believe Lord Krisna is the Godheads and therefore, is the head of all other forms of manifested gods, commonly called incarnations, among these Lord Buddha is one, Lord Amitabha is one and Brahma, Visnu, etc.

Rebuttal # 33: [Divine Eye we have Wisdom Eye then The Dharma Eye and the finest of all is the Buddha Eye] All these are crap talk (good reading literature that confuses more often than enlightening) if you can’t even open up your third eye. Most Rinpoche or Tibetan lama must pass through this elementary test before they are said to have graduated to a level that they can go out to preach. Among people who meditate without the strict instruction under a teacher, often they see illusion of bodhisattvas or other ugly images of evil spirits before their third eye is open. This is a very sad case.

Rebuttal #34: [Buddha is God of Non-God] May I repeat my stand. The creation of the phrase, God of Non-God arose out of the stubborn denial that there is God. Who is the mastermind of this school of thoughts? Lucifer or Satan or The Devil. Yet, you do not know that Lucifer is now in Hell. Otherwise, I would not dare to write this statement. Please, please, please do not put Lord Buddha in the same camp as Lucifer for two reasons. One, Lord Buddha is actual one of God’s right hand gods. Two, the normal Buddhist followers will throw stones at you.

Rebuttal #35: [The open war between Muslims and Christians were on and lasted and would continue till the end of the world. Why? Simply both Muslims and Christians see different forms of God, one as the Son and the other as a prophet.] This is not the correct answer. It is all about this: “I am I, You are you. I believe in god and you believe in Allah. My God is not Allah. Your Allah is not my God.” Who has this idea of “I am I, You are you.” And “Your God is not my Allah” and vice-versa? It is all human thinking. The same explanation goes with, you and I. Your more than 50 comments in this posting were all about denying every point that I wrote Zhuangzi and Hui Neng were all bad and sadly, controlled by the evil spirits during their live time. Why?  You are such a great blinded follower of Zhuangzi and Hui Neng. It is all about, “Your thinking is unlike my thinking.” Well, though on several occasions you agreed that there is a Godhead and it was Godhead who created the universe, 64 Amino acids and 64 kua. Yet, I beg to differ on these points on 64 Amino acids and 64 kua because I really do not know if these two points mentioned by you are true or not.

Rebuttal #36: [Buddhism teaches peace,global unity and universal brotherhood] This is motherhood wishy-washy statements that everyone loves to claim. Sorry, I beg to differ. Please give me the direct answer to my earlier questions. What were Lord Buddha’s teachings? What were the teachings of Lord Amitabha? What were the teachings of Guanyin (as in either the Indian god, Lokesvara or Chinese Guanshiyin)?

Rebuttal #37: [discard your worldly desires and lusts] and your earlier comment on sensual desire.  I beg to differ. I do not know what has gone wrong in the mind of all men, including you. The right answer lies in this blog http://blog.163.com/sd731302734@yeah/blog/static/111458918201210252254384/

Daji (妲己) kneels down in front of Lord Buddha and complain, “Lord Buddha, Why do the historians wrote I am the most hateful lady in Chinese history because I was the object of sensual desire that caused the down-fall of the Shang dynasty? I strongly protest. I was the only and mere wife of Shangzhou (商纣,the last king of the Shang dynasty). I too, want to protest on behalf of Shangzhou. He never ever once treated me as a object sensual desire.”Please go home and tell your wife she has always been an object of sensual desire. I am very 100% certain Lord Buddha did not teach you that your wife is an object of sensual desire. It is you who somehow learned a twisted version of the desires as taught by Lord Buddha and placed all women as objects of sensual desire.

Rebuttal #38: [The final fruition is Arhat阿罗汉] Sorry, I beg to difer. And I know how fatally you are infected by The Devil. All Arhats (阿罗汉) are evil spirits from the Lucifer camp. My good friend can see each and every one of these Arhats in one of the temples in China. He can see their lively faces. I asked him, “What did you do when you were face-to-face with all the 18 Arhats? I supposed you can communicate with any one of them at will.”  He replied, “Yes, I can communicate with any one of them. But I chose not. Why? You just do not disturb them and they will not disturb you. Well, Among the 18 Arhats, if you were to pray to the fiercest one which I can see and identify clearly, you can get what you want. However, when it comes to pay-back time, he will know the devastating consequences of asking help from one of these evil spirits.” Note: If my spiritual level has not reached this stage (where I can positively defend myself against the evil spirits with or without the help of my teacher), I would not dare to write down this fact. Yet, you believe the Arhats are good spirits. You are totally ignorant of the (unseen) world of the spirits.

Rebuttal #39: [Please don‘t argue over small wisdom about The Big Bang and The Black Holes… U can actually “see” them with Dharma Eye 法眼 if you attain the one-returner fruition.] I did not argue about the Big Bang Theory. It is the scientists who now understand that the Big Bang Theory is not a viable theory that has any fact. In fact, latest scientific investigation indicates that the Big Bang Theory is all wrong. So does the The Big Holes Theory. Yet, you are smarter than the community of scientists. I got to take my hats off to you. Worse, you equate The Big Bang Theory and The Big Hole theory to what the Dharma eye can see. What a foolish assertion or a much out-dated concept that scientists now have began to distance away. Please read more about the latest in-thing that the community of scientists is looking forward to; that is, the Hobson’s particles.       

Rebuttal #40: ]You are confused with the starting point and its ending in the circumference of an unknown length of radius and with centre lying nowhere in the Cosmos.....The world is without borders with its beginning-less and also endlessness.] I beg to differ. It shows that you are a blinded person who did not know that this point was already clearly explained in 《道德经》2,500 years ago. Please read my translation of《道德经》第25章:有物混成先天地生。寂兮寥兮独立不改,周行而不殆,可以为天下母。吾不知其名,强字之曰道。强为之名曰大。大曰逝,逝曰远,远曰反。故道大、天大、地大、人亦大。域中有大,而人居其一焉。人法地,地法天,天法道,道法自然。at url http://ericwoonct.blog.163.com/blog/static/181911362201261082844959/

Let me paste the English version here for the benefits of the English readers.

“There is one thing that occurred out of spontaneity and It has existed long before the formation of the universe. We cannot hear His voice and we also cannot see His physical body. He is alone and remains in absolute silence. He too, does not rely on any external force and yet, endures forever. He traverses all over the universe and never lets up or idles. He may be the origin of the universe. I do not know what His name is. If I were to reluctantly give Him a name, I called him, "God". Or I may reluctantly give Him another name called "The universe".

The universe is an immensely huge body and there is no ending to its physical boundary. Because there is no end to its physical boundary, it extends very, very far away. Although it extends very, very far away and yet, it can return to its point of origin. Therefore, it could be safely said, “God is the universe”[[1]].

Heaven or the celestial bodies is a subset of the universe. Earth is a subset of the universe. Mankind is also a subset of the universe. Among all the subsets that exist in the universe, mankind can only be regarded as a subset or an important element of the universe.

Mankind can only carry out actions or activities on the surface of the Earth. Our planet Earth orbits in the universe following a fixed (orbital) path. All the other celestial bodies can only change within the allowable limits set by God. God dictates over nature, that is, the universe.”

Rebuttal #41: [You had a predetermined set of concepts on "leadership"… So you played hide-and-seek game with your extraordinary grasps on words of the manipulative types.] You claimed you are a very learned person and a person who understand statistics and especially statistical hypothesis testing. Let me put across a simple non-parametric test by way of the test of hypothesis that 道 means both of these meanings, one, God or The creator of the universe and two, leadership. Well, I am putting my argument in the form of a test of statistical hypothesis because I want zdic.net to accept these two added meanings in addition to its existing 14 different meanings. And I want to subject my argument to all scientists or statisticians to prove me wrong. In the following test of hypothesis, I want to prove to you, Zhuangzi’s statement that 道 means The Way (which was not neatly defined in the first place) is definitely wrong. Perhaps, tomorrow, I can finish writing these two tests of hypothesis. Please do not tell me, “No! You cannot apply test of hypothesis in these two case studies. You are making yourself looks like a dumb fool who is so pre-conceived with one mindset that Zhuangzi’s statement that 道 means The Way is definite right even though I have use a test of hypothesis to prove it wrong beyond any doubt.” It only tells the world, you are definitely being controlled by the evil spirits and your output is all the way out to defy God.

Btw, this factual (I mean it was a true fact) statement of mine will surprise you and will rock you off your chair. “It was Godwho wrote this book, 《道德经》. While Confucius was sent down to Earth (China) as a messenger, God was still writing this book. When Confucius came of age, Laozi was sent down as a messenger who wrote it down in bamboo sticks and handed it over to Confucius. Immediately after handling over this scripture, Laozi went off to the hill and disappeared from the society as a hermit. With this scripture, 《道德经》, Confucius began to teach all the zhuhou (诸侯) about 君臣之道. What is君臣之道? Back then, the zhuhou are the lord over a district (县)where there is a main township (镇) and several villages (乡)and the farmers are widely dispersed in the wild or rural areas(野) around the villages. The zhuhou of each district was the lord over everyone who lived in his district. All the people who lived in his district are his feudal servants 臣民。君臣之道 taught by Confucius was all about how the lord should lead his servants. If the lord is the master, he must therefore, lead his servants in all forms of proper conducts. This was why 56 chapters out of 81 chapters of  《道德经》all in all contains 225 leadership principles.  

I know you want to deny the above true fact as a belief (down-graded, sort of by you) when in the first place you are not God and neither a prophet and hence, disqualified to shoot it down as not fact. And, I am telling you out-right now, I am a prophet, a 21st century prophet that you have not authority to disprove, but you can choose to disagree.   

Let me summarized this long rebuttals in a neat and simple way.

Lucifer, the self-claimed God of Non-God had successfully to a large extent manipulated the thought of mankind through the works of Zhuangzi, Hui Neng, the appearance of释尊 (some form of buddha or bodhisattva) while someone was meditating. Lucifer and his gang of rebellious spirits went on to fool mankind with the creation of all kinds of words or concepts that could not be proven by science and yet, cloak them under a branch which I termed as Zen science. Mankind is at the losing end and cannot defend themselves from the evil works of the pool of evil spirits because in the first place, they themselves deny that there exists a pool higher living (than man) called, spirits. To be more exacting, spirits can be good and bad. It is only the bad spirits who consistently deny the existence of God, the Creator of the universe. While the good spirits are trying their best to teach mankind how to avoid being evil.    


[1] It can be safely said that each object in the universe is a mere cell within the body of God. Simply put, when God created the celestial bodies, He created them as cells that are housed within His body. This is the reason for the saying, “God is the creator of the universe”.

  评论这张
 
阅读(959)| 评论(0)
推荐

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017