20121001

南懷瑾和劍仙

南懷瑾逝世,網上和報章有不少吹捧他的悼念文章,甚麼「國學大師」、「精通儒釋道」等,看得我非常不順眼。李敖張中行、和方舟子都指出過南懷瑾的著作裏胡說八道之處,我不忌批評死人,在這裏引他在〈太極拳與道功〉裏的幾段說話,讓大家看看他吹牛皮可以吹到甚麼程度:

『四川名勝鵠鳴山,為東漢期間道教祖師張道陵隱居之地,山上住有一位名號王青風的道士,是四川境內傳說的劍仙,我曾經上山尋訪他,多次以後,終於見到面,他亦是一位奇人異士。他說:並無飛劍這種事,但劍仙卻是有的。然而他的說法又與杭州城隍山老道所說稍有不同。他說劍為一種「氣功」,所謂以神御氣,以氣御劍,百步之外可以禦敵。又說劍有五類,大別之為有形、無形。他知道我羡慕「金光一道」的劍術時,告訴我需鑄備一寸三分長金質小劍,再以道家方法習練。一如道家練丹之法,可將黃金煉化成液體,並可服飲,若中了毒,道家並有解此毒的藥。當時私自想到,現在到了科學昌明,槍炮及炸彈等威力無比的利器皆已發明了的時代,還去苦練這種劍術幹什麼?如果是為了強身,則個人已經知道的許多方法,就足以保健,何必浪費時間在這方面。就因這樣想法,意志始終未能專精堅持而放棄了。

 後來請王青風老師表演,那時我們彼此之間的感情已經很深厚,所以他就特允了我的請求。一次他站在山頭上,用手一指,數丈外對峰上的一棵老松即應手而倒。我童心未泯,尚驚訝地問他何以無光。他說:「我早已經告訴過你並無此事,欲練至有光,另有一番道理。」

這時他的大弟子亦在旁邊,這個人也是道士裝束,我亦請他表演,但見他用鼻孔吼氣,便看到他站立之處,週遭山土轉即成塵飛揚。此二次表演都是我親眼目睹的事實,由此而相信中國武術,的確可練至甚高甚妙境界。』

凌空一指能斷樹?鼻息能吹動塵土飛揚?言之鑿鑿講出這種荒誕無稽之事的人,還有甚麼騙人的話不敢講?

南懷瑾仙遊,世上少了一個「大師」,不過,愛「大師」的人們不必擔心,只要你們肯追捧,世上的「大師」多著呢!

以下是 Yan 提供的南懷瑾講古片段:

84 則留言:

  1. 算啦!王SIR!你當佢寫"古代科幻神話"故事算數啦!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 太多人吹捧,忍不住要出聲。

      刪除
    2. 我不如說是中國儒家式學者的"死唔斷氣",永遠喜歡把一切事物混在一起討論,從而吹噓自己視野大,胸襟大!這一種所謂"和諧"和"融合"簡直不知所謂!




      刪除
  2. 這年逝世而真正有學識的文史學者,有旅美的何炳棣、大陸的朱維錚、台灣的杜維運,不過他們都沒有「國學大師」的冠冕,所以就沒這麼多悼念追憶的文章。(起碼在香港如是)

    LC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我想不到南懷瑾逝世的消息連東方日報也會報導。

      刪除
  3. 這大概又是晚節不保的例子.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 應該不只是晚年才有問題。

      刪除
  4. 他是在寫武俠小說,但金庸的比他強很多。

    回覆刪除
  5. 回覆
    1. 唉,比我想像的更似一個講古佬。他竟教人練氣功防遺精哩:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacuwOn_xOY

      刪除
    2. //練氣功防遺精// 南懷瑾 would do well as a Falun gong leader. LOL. --zpdrmn

      刪除
  6. 回覆
    1. 連劍氣都言之鑿鑿,講長生不老就不出奇了。

      刪除
  7. Prof. Wong, you are a debunker!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Yes, indeed I wish I could do more.

      刪除
  8. 「造神運動」在中國其實是屢見不鮮的事,中國人造了許許多多大大小小的神,有不愧為「神州」之稱。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 南懷瑾是台灣的大師,可見吹捧大師不是中國大陸獨有的現象。

      刪除
    2. 台灣人相信有相當不少的部份也是從中國去的並且也帶去了中國的文化和傳統。

      刪除
  9. 好傷感的詩。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 也可以有不傷感的讀法。

      刪除
  10. Not long (some months?) ago I watched part of a video where Mr. 南懷瑾 talked about Buddhism. It didn't take long before I tuned out, though I tried to stay with him. I didn't think he got it. Worse, he didn't even have any good insights. A lot of times, he talked about something other than Buddhism.
    Why are there so many people who think he's so great a Buddhist? I'm not a bit impressed. --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. "Why are there so many people who think he's so great a Buddhist?"

      Perhaps they are right and you are not?

      刪除
    2. There are billions of people who think Jesus is the son of God. Is this fact by itself a good reason for believing that Jesus is the son of God?

      刪除
    3. Maybe he is, maybe he is not. I seriously do not know.

      Even though some of his self proclaimed followers are rather annoying and even evil, I believe the man himself was quite decent. It really don’t bother me what he called himself.

      The logics of this matter is that the billions of people could be wrong about Jesus but it has nothing to do with whether Mr Nan is a great Buddhist.

      The issue is dear professor, you tried to philosophising Buddhism, you get tangled by the text.

      If you take away mysticism from Buddhism, what's left is no longer Buddhism.

      刪除
    4. //The logics of this matter is that the billions of people could be wrong about Jesus but it has nothing to do with whether Mr Nan is a great Buddhist.//

      - Well, I was simply responding to your appeal to the number of supporters Mr. Nan has.

      刪除
    5. You are not being logical here professor.

      I was merely saying Mr Nan's supports could be correct, I did not assert because they are in large numbers therefore they are correct.

      I know you like to be a fish and tried to be slippery on the core issue of this post but I would really like to hear your opinion on mysticism in Buddhism and Taoism.

      Come on mate, don't be coy !!!

      刪除
    6. I didn't notice that you were quoting zpdrmn when I saw in your comment the question "Why are there so many people who think he's so great a Buddhist?". My bad.

      Anyway, I am skeptical of all forms of mysticism. Buddhist philosophy and Taoist philosophy are both interesting to me, but not Buddhist or Taoist mysticism.

      刪除
    7. How do you reconcile the fact that most Buddhist scriptures contained references to mystic power of Buddha?

      金刚经:“须菩提!于意云何?如来有天眼不?”  “如是,世尊!如来有天眼。”

      If you are sceptical of Buddha’s claims of 不可思議之境界, and by your logic he was a bigger conman than Mr Nan, why do you take seriously his philosophy?

      I’m sure you would have spend a great dealof brain power trying to understand “色不异空,空不异色。色即是空,空即是色。”.

      But don’t forget this is a realisation of观自在菩萨during his deep mediative state ”行深般若波罗蜜多时照见五蕴皆空”.

      刪除
    8. Reconciling what with what? Even if the Buddha had mystic experiences, that does not make him a con man (otherwise you and your relative should be considered con men). The Buddha was mystified and supernaturalized by his followers, but it is not clear that the Buddha saw himself as having supernatural powers. And even if the Buddha made false claims about his mystic experiences and abilities, Buddhism can still have psychological and philosophical insights.

      刪除
    9. 1.“Even if the Buddha had mystic experiences, that does not make him a con man”
      Are you kidding me professor, this is one of the reason you accused Mr Nan of being a 偽大師 (con man).

      2.“it is not clear that the Buddha saw himself as having supernatural powers”
      You are being very liberal with your interpretation of Buddhist scriptures here - something you accused Mr Nan of. Explain this to me: 金刚经:“须菩提!于意云何?如来有天眼不?”  “如是,世尊!如来有天眼。”

      3.“Buddhism can still have psychological and philosophical insights.”
      Yes of course, but these insights were realisations from deep meditative state of mind. Otherwise how could you explain this :” 行深般若波罗蜜多时照见五蕴皆空”.?

      刪除
    10. 1. No, I was accusing Nan of bullshitting when he recounted the story of seeing someone breaking a tree without touching it. If telling such a story counted as having mystic experience, I could have "mystic experience" too.

      2. I suppose you know that the Buddha did not write any of the Buddhist texts we now have. What a Buddhist text says of the Buddha may not be what really took place.

      3. Why must all psychological and philosophical insights in Buddhism came from "deep meditative state of mind"? Why couldn't some of them be the result of self-reflection, reasoning, and observation? As a matter of fact, some Buddhist texts, such as《中論》, contain a lot of deductive reasoning and philosophical arguments.

      刪除
    11. 1.I think any unbiased or even biased reader of your posts and comments regarding Mr Nan would agree that one of the reason you are accusing Mr Nan of being a 偽大師 is due to his belief in mysticism (recounting someone else’s or his own). You are being very slippery and frivolous with your denial here.

      2.“What a Buddhist text says of the Buddha may not be what really took place.”
      I was expecting this from you! It is commonly acknowledge most Buddhist scripture (佛經) is a true account of Buddha’s teachings. Unless you have concrete proof or provide a reasonable argument to dispute this, you are being slippery again.

      This is classic Sir Humphrey, cast doubt when you can’t win an argument.( I will look for the exact quote for you.)

      3.
      I will quote you 談錫永on《中论》: “ …非徒说理论,亦唯由观修着眼,始能明佛所说法之义理。若徒说理论,脱离观修而自逞世智辩聪,佛已说为“说食不饱”,由是所说即似是而非,无著论师于《顺中论》中说为“相似般若波罗蜜多”者,即是此类。须知一切佛法,有说有修有证,故知唯说而不由修与证而明其说,此说则亦只能相似,非真实故。”

      A similar theme is here:
      http://www.stbsa.org/zh/association/zh_RMUInterviewMasterTam.aspx

      刪除
    12. I don't know I am a biased or unbiased reader, but I find you, not Prof. Wong, unreasonable. You act like a religious fanatic who reacts aggressively because someone has criticized his religion.

      刪除
    13. S,
      //Perhaps they are right and you are not?//
      Maybe. Would you explain why or how they are right if you think they are.
      Also, I have asked to questions in another blog entry. Would you take some time to make your case there? --zpdrmn

      刪除
    14. @Ming,

      Yes I’m accusing the good professor of being slippery with his facts and arguments, with good reason.

      Compare with the professor’s un-scholastic (in the traditional sense) and lowly act of 鞭屍 (南懷瑾死後向我報夢,懺悔自己蒙混世人多年,拜託我拆穿他,好讓他泉下好過一點…) –I think I’m very well mannered.

      Since you have a different standard for the professor and myself, it is obvious you are biased. There is no need to be coy about it. It is your choice, I take no offence.

      I’m not religious, let alone being a religious fanatic. I was merely trying to deconstruct the good professor’s assumptions and arguments.

      Also, in case you missed my point, I’m not suggesting anyone should accept my arguments. In point 1, I was stating the obvious that the professor is accusing Mr Nan of being a con man (蒙混世人多年) because of Mr Nan’s belief in mysticism and his liberal interpretation of 儒釋道 texts.- an accusation the professor now trying to obfuscate.

      Now if you excuse me……

      刪除
    15. @zpdrmn,

      That was a response to your statement that Mr Nan does not getting Buddhsim.

      If you are serious about understanding Buddhism, you need to consult your own master/guru.

      Perhaps you may also wish to ask yourself whether or not you are cherry picking bits of Buddhism to fit your own narrative.

      刪除
    16. S,

      Call me biased if you like. As I see it, Professor Wong has been very polite and patient with you, and responded to all your comments, questions, criticisms etc. If I were him, I would have ignored you after two or three rounds of response.

      刪除
    17. "Call me biased if you like. " -- Yes, if find 鞭屍 acceptable.

      ".... I would have ignored you after two or three rounds of response."

      That is your choice, I lose no sleep over it.

      In case you forget, the blogger is “魚之樂“,you are "Ming" and we are on the internet.



      刪除
    18. I am totally fine with so-called 鞭屍. I don't understand why people think dead people should not be criticized simply because they are dead.

      刪除
    19. If both of you and the professor are fine with 鞭屍, that is your choice. I made no moral judgment. I was merely pointing out your double standards since you raised behaviour issues.

      If you bother to follow through my arguments, I'm consistent in focusing the key issues of mysticism in Buddhism/Taoism and the professor's cherry picking of Buddhist concepts to fit his own narrative.

      I'm playing the ball here, not the man.

      刪除
    20. S,
      //了鼻屎,擦蘿友// is your point. How come you are not answering but telling me to ask some guru?
      Go ask your master? That's the best you can do?
      I suspect that you ask your master(s) a lot.
      Well. I need to ask a master, sure enough I don't get it.

      I am not //cherry picking bits of Buddhism to fit [my] own narrative.//
      But I am cherry picking your point //了鼻屎,擦蘿友// and ask you to clarify it. Show me your narrative. Yeah, yeah, I should go ask some guru. I can ask you more questions after you talk about //了鼻屎,擦蘿友//.
      I'll pick plums, oranges, apples, kiwis, peaches, etc, not only cherries. Of course I pick my nose and wipe my butt too.
      If you are not able to argue for your point, just say so. I won't ask you again. Just don't dance around, please.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
    21. @Ming
      Oh yeah, I forgot to response to this :"I don't understand why people think dead people should not be criticized simply because they are dead."

      I also don't believe dead people should not be criticised, but there is a clear distinction between criticising a dead person and ridiculing one’s death.

      Given we are on the web and the ridicule was contented in a quick (and I believed not well thought out) comment, I gave the professor the benefit of doubts.

      刪除
    22. Just relax man, you sound like a religious fanatic going after someone who deemed to be sacrilegious. Hence I advised you to consult your teachers.

      As I have already explained “佛在世時…” was a response to a comment about修行者 and 清心寡欲.

      Since you are so keen, I will provide you with more food for thought: 修行,苦行, 清心寡欲, 在家居士, 出家人, 在世, 入世, 出世

      刪除
    23. S,
      you are still dancing around and not answering my questions and defending your points. I just ask you to defend your points. And you simply don't do it. Say whatever you want about me. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    24. S,
      I'm going to consult my master this weekend. Since you so insist, I'll ask him about Nan and your points. Are you happy now? --zpdrmn

      刪除
    25. Gee, I admire your persistence.

      Mr Nan, when he was alive he ate and shat like everyone. He smoked and probably had sex as well … oh yes he did,dirty man, he even had several kids.

      Is someone less a 修行者( note: no苦行者) because he is a smoker.

      I don't have the capability to judge whether or not Mr Nan "gets Buddhism" but much of what he said about Buddhist practices/mysticism are actually in the scriptures.

      If Mr Nan was a con man for regurgitating Buddhist scriptures, shouldn’t the professor debunk Buddha himself or his close disciples (for exaggerating Buddha as claimed by the professor)?

      Perhaps you should be as persistent in asking the professor to stop dancing around the core issues raised by his post and commentaries.

      殺雞焉用牛刀, go for the bigger fish Mr professor.

      刪除
    26. "I'm going to consult my master this weekend"

      Good boy ....if Mr Nan is not your cup of tea, you can always try 談錫永/王亭之。

      刪除
    27. S,
      you are saying that picking nose, wiping butts, having sex, and smoking won't make one less a 修行者. I agree. But I wasn't talking about that.
      I was talking about that forcing other people to inhale second hand smoke and damaging their health by smoking in front of them. Can you see the difference?
      I am talking about being considerate. How can you defend that? You can it's his ignorance.
      Even for a non-practitioner, one should be considerate.
      Even if we don't talk about health, the smell of the smoke for non-smoker is unbearable. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    28. S,
      //Good boy// Are you being condescending again?
      I will ask about 王亭之 too.
      Anyone else?
      I suspect that to you practice is all about ESP, supernatural power, and the like. Am I right?
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
    29. S,
      I was a bit too loose. Let me say a bit more.
      Even smoking alone could be inconsiderate. If one doesn't have anyone who loves him and he smokes to death, it probably won't hurt him as a practitioner, especially when he is an enlightened one. If he has someone, say, X, who loves him and sees him smoke to death, despite that X tries to convince him not to smoke. When he dies, it very likely hurts X a lot. In a sense, the smoking behavior, even doing it alone outdoors, is an inconsiderate act.
      Of course, if one doesn't even consider smoking in front of a bunch of people as inconsiderate, we don't even have to discuss this finer point with him.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
  11. 回覆
    1. 吹水,聽了十分鐘聽不下去。

      刪除
  12. 讀過他幾本書,如《靜坐修道與長生不老》,更奇幻的都有。但我多先不以為假說或吹牛待之,反而很想知道他說的東西(如「醍醐灌頂」、「法輪」等等)之道理、和操作原理,但他很多地方都當成理所當然的事實般講,也是很難簡單置信。說實在,我並不能從中學到什麼神奇法門,但對同類講氣功或靜功夫的書,因為他講的簡單,反而較少故弄玄虛的地方,讀完跟著練一下,有時也覺身心舒泰。

    回覆刪除
  13. 教授 我又再離題啦=0=/
    如果傳媒報導小悅悅一事(細路女俾車輾 十幾人見死不救)
    有人認為當中見死不救既人唔一定係大陸人
    我地叫佢俾證據 但係佢就講
    最先宣告既係傳媒 應該係要傳媒先證明
    咁根據個舉証責任 個個人固然都應該要舉證據
    但係傳媒又需唔需要拎證據 證明見死不救既人係大陸人?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你這是自尋煩惱的問題。事發在中國,地點又不是很多外來人出沒的地區,見死不救者有多人,認為他們至少大部份是中國人,是十分合理的。

      刪除
    2. 咁係未@@
      指責既一方須要舉出合理既証據
      指出指責是合理 但要完全駁倒 證明我既立場係錯
      證據就必須要合理而真(指責一方認為係真)
      加強論證力量(說服力)
      我就只須要舉合理既理由 就可以拎出立場
      同理 我要令立場夠堅固 就要舉出合理而真既証據
      如果雙方都舉唔出合理而真既證明
      事情真假就要置而不論 如果唔想因此中止討論
      就要舉出比對方理由更合理既理由
      借此令立場假設更有力
      如果雙方證據同樣非常合理
      就唔能夠話任何一方立場是對是錯 被迫中止討論?
      不過 我又諗極唔明 點解你對同性戀無可無不可
      就唔洗拎證據?
      好複雜啊囧
      不如你直接開估啦....
      幾時需要拎證據 幾時唔洗
      證據係要合理 定係合理而真?
      或者你介紹本舉証責任既書
      等我睇下先人討論到咩地步v_v""

      刪除
    3. 教授 不如你再答埋呢個=_="
      剛剛諗起蘇格拉底既辯証法
      不斷問類比問題 等正方論據自敗其缺
      咁樣算唔算係証明 批評別人既理由時
      不一定要用論據?

      刪除
    4. //不如你直接開估啦....
      幾時需要拎證據 幾時唔洗//

      - 提出立場要別人接受,一般都應有理據。

      //證據係要合理 定係合理而真?//

      - 應是合理而真。

      //或者你介紹本舉証責任既書//

      - 我沒見過這樣的書。

      刪除
    5. //等正方論據自敗其缺
      咁樣算唔算係証明//

      - 不算。

      //批評別人既理由時
      不一定要用論據//

      - 要論據,但 counterexamples 也算論據。

      刪除
  14. 小子,
    My approach to //十分合理的// arguments like that in the story of 小悅悅 where one can say //他們至少大部份是中國人// is to use probability or statistics reasoning. I think it is not a matter of //幾時需要拎證據 幾時唔洗//. One can use argument with statistical 論據 (not 證據). We can't have everything with 100% certainty.
    An example of using statistics: How can we be sure in the quality control of some batch of food product that every package in the batch is safe? or within certain range of weight? etc. We can't. We test only a small sample (if passes, we sell the rest) of the batch, warranted by statistical calculations, within certain range of error, above certain confidence level. We can't be 100% certain. We can't test all the packages; otherwise, none of them will hit the market and the consumers can't use them, if the test involves breaking open the packages. Good enough is good enough.
    Finger print evidence is base on statistics. (I have heard that finger print forensics isn't developed by scientists but some people who aren't qualified, and that the theory and practice are on shaky grounds. I haven't got the time to find out if that is true or not.) --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  15. 是博主對國學認識太淺白,得罪了

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你從我批評南懷瑾就推斷出我對國學認識太淺?

      刪除
    2. 呵呵,是 "認識太淺",不是 "認識太淺白" 啊!連這個也分不清就來替南大師申冤?什麼水平啊你?

      刪除
    3. 路人丙你咁講野@.@a
      好似變左係魚之樂護法(難聽講句係蝦兵蟹將 得罪啦v_v")
      你咁講既話
      即係話王教授混淆左@_@"...
      其次 「淺」同「淺白」有咩分別? ?_?
      (王教授冇幫南氐申冤
      假設你回應老麥)

      刪除
  16. 無錯. 因為你所謂的國學,不包括內功、道學[也許也不包括易學和玄學]。

    我想說另外一點,更重要的,是你所用的思考方法。

    你說不能相信沒有證據的東西,但你卻在沒有證據之下去推翻其他東西。這豈非雙重標準?作為一個學者,應該有求證的精神。未知只是未知,謹此而矣。

    路過多口,得罪了

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我很一致呀:沒有證據支持有內功、劍氣、長生不老等怪力亂神的東西,所以我不相信。

      刪除
  17. 我就是想說,沒有證據不代表不存在,只是未知。

    你可以不信,那是你自己的知性選擇。卻不能說他講大話,因為你沒有證據說他講大話。在沒有證據推翻他的說話之前,你的指控就和他的故事一樣,基礎不明。





    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 假如我說寫這兩篇批評南懷瑾的文章,是因為南懷瑾死後向我報夢,懺悔自己蒙混世人多年,拜託我拆穿他,好讓他泉下好過一點;你大概不會只是不相信我說的,還會認為我講大話,但你有沒有證據證明我講大話?

      有些太荒誕的說話(例如凌空一指斷樹),與已有充份證據支持的看法(例如物理學)相抵觸,那麼相抵觸這一事實已是認為那荒誕說話是假話的充份理由。

      刪除
    2. 吹牛﹑說假話的前提﹐是憑空捏造

      而你事實上不能排除的一個可能性是﹕
      他確實看到那道士凌空一指斷樹﹐但作假的是那個道士。

      再說﹐你不要信便不談科學﹐不信便拿科學說事
      腳底穴位按摩也沒甚麼生物學根據﹐點解你又做﹖

      刪除
    3. 文少,

      //而你事實上不能排除的一個可能性是﹕
      他確實看到那道士凌空一指斷樹﹐但作假的是那個道士。//

      - 道士只是一個例子,假如單講這個例子你的說法成立,但南懷瑾講這些怪力亂神的說話在他的著作裏俯拾皆是,而且並非每次都是有人表演或別人告訴他的。

      //再說﹐你不要信便不談科學﹐不信便拿科學說事
      腳底穴位按摩也沒甚麼生物學根據﹐點解你又做﹖//

      - 腳底穴位按摩並沒有與科學抵觸,只是沒有科學實驗證明其有效;還有,我寫腳底按摩時已表明自己不太信,替老婆按摩只是因為她覺得有效。

      刪除
    4. 老麥,

      //至此無須再辯。//

      - 那就最好了,省回我不少時間。

      刪除
    5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
      我終於品嘗到佢既味道....
      Extraordinary claims 原來係唔可以只用normal evidence......
      科學只係一門證偽 人家可以話 佢地冇激發到人類潛能....
      所以冇發現呢方面既力量....
      但南氐一方..... 唔該舉個更有力既證據吧.....
      人證既話 有冇更多既人證......

      刪除
    6. 小子﹕

      氏﹐不是氐﹐倉頡碼是HVP。
      仲有﹐我唔明一個人講自己的奇遇﹐點解需要證據﹖
      又點樣提出證據先﹖
      例如﹕我曾經識個老表﹐行行下新填地街﹐突然大叫撞鬼
      我在場﹐乜春都睇唔到
      完全無人證無物證﹐講法絕對唔科學
      但你見住條友﹐確實嚇到鼻哥窿無肉﹐又點證明﹖

      依哲人王呢篇文個所謂邏輯﹐
      咪係要破口大罵話對方9up嚇鬼先﹖
      定學科學牛河之父曹宏威﹐夾粗老作個科學化解釋
      話對方產生幻覺﹖

      刪除
    7. 講奇遇 大家聽下笑下 當睇中國d鬼神故事咁
      當然唔會要求咩證據啦=v=
      真假唔決定故事情節精唔精彩'v'
      唔通烏龜唔識講野就唔睇龜兔賽跑
      唐三藏冇徒弟護送就唔睇西遊記咩.....+_+
      但係你同我講 你見過齊天大聖@_@
      西遊記既故事係真既 真係有玉皇大帝@口@
      仲講埋天上狀況
      其實耶穌同玉皇大帝係好朋友XD(笑)
      最後要求我相信 咁我要點做? /口\
      你又證明唔到俾我睇話有
      我又證明唔到你錯
      我就唯有存疑啦=^=
      唔通大家證明唔到耶穌存在就要信既咩......
      要人信既話 唔該舉個有力既證據
      證明你既立場啦 舉證責任.... 正方都有份負擔嫁.....
      都係個句
      證據只會嫌少 唔會嫌多
      有得舉既話 做咩唔舉多d呢.../ 0 \

      ps:氏 thx>0</

      刪除
    8. I understand you are a professor of something but I’m not sure which subject matter.

      It seems to me you are trying to detach佛家,道家,佛教,道教 from mysticism because you believe in “science”. If this is the case then you are ready missing the point.

      I’m a fully qualified engineer (real engineering, not IT) with many years of work experience. I have been called by the courts to give expert evidence on engineering related matters.

      10 years ago, an illiterate village woman whom I had only met told me something very private and very specific about another person who was 2000km away with nth degree of separation. She couldn’t have mind-read me as I didn’t know about the matter at the time. All I provided to her is the birthday of the other person and then I closed my mouth.

      I have a 80 years relative who was a mathematician and staunch atheist. After retirement at 60, he had nothing better to do so he tried to challenge a Taoist master that Taoism is BS. The master told him he had to see for himself. So he practised the 功法 prescribed by the master for 4 years.

      When he reached the intermediate level, he had many unexplained mystic experiences like seeing future events. He stopped practicing after a few years because he was too afraid to go deeper but he still does some of the exercises for health reasons.

      And yes, he told me he had experienced Qi and it does exist.

      He nor I could explain all these mystic experiences through our training in science and logics but we could safely conclude that these experiences are real.

      刪除
    9. I don't doubt that you and your relative had the experiences you recounted, but the experiences could be explained in different ways. Besides, anecdotal evidence is unreliable.

      I don't believe in science because science is not a religion. I have good reason to use the scientific method because it has been proven to be a reliable method.

      I am a professor of philosophy.

      刪除
    10. "but the experiences could be explained in different ways..."

      Please enlighten me, I'm all ears.

      刪除
    11. The mystic experience of "seeing future", for example, could be psychological retrojection. The general point is that if an experience could have more than one possible cause, then the experience could be explained in more than one way.

      Take my own experience of waking up in the middle of the night, finding myself not being able to move at all, and seeing a ghost hovering over my bed. One possible explanation is that there was really a ghost which caused my experience. Another possible explanation is that I had sleep paralysis.

      刪除
  18. //道士只是一個例子,假如單講這個例子你的說法成立,但南懷瑾講這些怪力亂神的說話在他的著作裏俯拾皆是,而且並非每次都是有人表演或別人告訴他的。//

    如你講他有亂講的其他例子﹐你點解唔引用
    而要用這個例子﹐來證明他講假話嘛﹖
    現在﹐我只需指出你那例子﹐不足以證明他蓄意撒謊即可。

    //腳底穴位按摩並沒有與科學抵觸,只是沒有科學實驗證明其有效;還有,我寫腳底按摩時已表明自己不太信,替老婆按摩只是因為她覺得有效。//

    其實﹐這篇文主題是談太極拳的﹐那些求武奇遇不論真假
    根本是旁支末節
    我根本不明白你為何刻意拿這些說事
    問題回到最根本﹐他談太極拳的部份﹐那些是亂說﹐才是重點

    好像你看李敖批他亂解易經﹐認不認同他的解法是另一回事﹐可是他卻批得實實在在的﹐有理有節的。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我開宗明義說「在這裏引他在〈太極拳與道功〉裏的幾段說話,讓大家看看他吹牛皮可以吹到甚麼程度」,分明就只是舉一個例子,不是要證明甚麼。要證明,那就要寫一篇長得多的文章了。

      刪除
    2. 正是如此﹐我只需指出你提出的例子﹐並不能證明南懷謹在蓄意撒謊即可。

      其次﹐即使我假定你的說法成立﹐「凌空一指斷樹」一事是他老作出來的﹐但你不是說他不科學﹐而是直接說他荒誕。

      其三﹐我同情地理解﹐假定你那個「荒誕」等於「不科學」﹐怎樣不科學﹐你沒說明。

      其四﹐你在回應老麥時﹐聲稱「凌空一指斷樹」違反物理學定律﹐違反了哪個定律﹖牛頓第二定律﹖

      更重要的是﹐「凌空一指斷樹」根本是旁支末節﹐〈太極拳與道功〉主要內容部份﹐究竟哪裡有問題﹐請指出來。否則﹐我只可說你雞蛋裡挑骨頭。

      人家屍骨未寒﹐你便寫篇文鞭人屍(今次是真的鞭屍)﹐缺不缺德先不論﹐但既然咁你都做得出﹐就唔好吝嗇文字啦。

      刪除