[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel.

2 Jun.:

As not to scatter your attention I go straight to the kernel again

Krimel said:
> Yang does not spawn Yin or vise versa. They are concepts derived from
> our experience of the path. Yin and Yang do not have specific meanings.

OK, forget the spawning, but in the previous post (below) you 
described the Yang/Yin as corresponding more or less to the DQ/SQ.

    The static dynamic split was made by Taoists in the Han 
    dynasty around 200 B.C. In their additions to the I-Ching they 
    called the active or dynamic force Yang and the passive static 
    force Yin.    

and if you again will consider the issue. If Yang/Yin division is 
mandatory - i.e. it couldn't as well  have been Gung/Ho and still been 
Taoism - then DQ/SQ is mandatory, MOQ's DQ is the dynamic part 
part of existence. Get it? 

> They are ways of seeing and characterizing the binary divisions that
> appear so natural to us. Again Lao Tsu does not use these terms. They
> are the addition of later Taoists. Taoist metaphysics results from
> centuries of Chinese sages directly experimenting with and trying to
> understand randomness. The I-Ching is the culmination of these efforts.
> Taoist metaphysics were appropriated by Buddhists as the philosophical
> underpinning of Zen. 

I accept every word, but you said that DQ/SQ corresponds to the 
Yang/Yin and I agree. There can't be any Tao without the Yang/Yin 
arrangement and no Quality without the DQ/SQ. If the mere act of 
saying so is the sin, how do you avoid language?    

> I would argue that the a dualism of SQ and DQ is only a matter of
> appearance and conception and that the underlying Tao remains
> undefined. 

But for Goodness' sake the MOQ "argues" that DQ is and will remain 
undefined. Again muster your resources and try to come to grips with 
this issue.

Bodvar