VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123[4]5678910 ]
Subject: 我沒有補充了


Author:
公仔佬
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:58:14 05/11/03 Sun
In reply to: 蔡進步 's message, "Re: 以下文字,可供參考。" on 09:37:54 05/11/03 Sun

讀書方法,人人不同,亦各取其趣之所在而已。
以儒釋道,當然有不妥當之處;若以原書之後篇釋前篇亦屬不當,余卻未之前聞;至於以中文釋英文之說,則更流於濫用類比也。
不過,亦各言其志,無傷乎!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 我沒有補充了


Author:
蔡進步
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 04:39:01 05/12/03 Mon

學生想說的是,同一本書,都會講多過左個唔同既念
<<老子>><<莊子>>等,同一本書都分別講左佢地對當世致亂既原因...世界觀.....應識論等等~~但總不可以把不同概念混為一談

學生是固執的牛皮燈籠
對哲學興趣甚濃.不通的解釋,就是不通,可有兩說的解釋就是可有兩說
公仔老師在解釋的是

道 如果 可說出來 就不是 "恆常的道"

即是就 "恆常的道" 是道不了出來
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 我沒有補充了


Author:
蔡進步
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 04:40:45 05/12/03 Mon

公仔老的解釋境然是 因為言傳會引起分家派.....而不言傳.....就不是說 常道 都可以言傳 ,不過因言傳可能會誤傳或因一字多義的關係 導致分家派係我 所以不言傳
不就是就 常道本身是可道,不過可能誤傳?.?
及後公仔老師竟然引 不欲不亂等等講第二個問題既句子
同 "道 如果是可說的 就不是 恆常的道 "有何關係
有欲 --->亂,所以可說的道不是常道?
道了出來---->分家派--->爭執,所以常道不可道
如果不爭執,不分家,不誤傳,難道,道就可道了麼?!?!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 我沒有補充了


Author:
蔡進步
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 04:59:21 05/12/03 Mon

不可一詞是能力上的不可,而不是為與不為的不可
因為佢講係道既本質既描述
是一個問"道是什麼?"的答案 道解作道理故可,但是 睇晒既話 只解道做道理就有點把儒家尚的道同道家講既道,客觀既,不存善惡,近於"規律"一詞的道混淆了
哲理深微的一句"道可道,非常道;明可明非常明"在公仔佬師口中竟變成如此簡單的推論...
公仔佬教了學生用平仄等黎做分開句子的indicator之一,學生大大受惠,文學手段高明歸文學手段
故,學生重申解法是
恆常規律/手段/背後道理 不可以講出黎 因為 一講出黎 就係只係道理的一部份,只能解釋某一個situation,不能稱為 "常"


[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.