Talk:Wuji (philosophy)

Merge?

Could this be merged with Taiji? The Encyclopedia of Taoism (2007) article is entitled ""wuji and taiji Ultimateless and Great Ultimate". Keahapana (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They are different.--水水 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lingshan and Shengyu

It's inappropriate to compare Wuji with "Lingshan (靈山 or spiritual mountain) in Chinese Buddhism" and "Shengyu (聖域 or sacred territory) in the Confucianism". Lingshan refers to an actual place called Griddhkuta (靈鷲山), which is a holy place for Buddhists with certain symbolic significance that may be akin to Wuji. Shengyu, on the other hand, is a term rarely used even in Confucianism itself -- I-Kuan Tao uses this term much more often than Confucianism but it is hardly worth mentioning. I have thus deleted that paragraph. mean (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lemean, you will note the correlations in terminology will eventually lead to a fuller explanation of the two graphic accounts of Xiuzhen(Xiuzhen and Neijingtu), or as Keaphana mentioned in his commentary of Xiudao(a term older but no longer accurate), Lingshan or Shengyu denotes state of attainment in Self-realization (and a little more), for followers of Buddhism or Confucianism this simile is to further broaden understanding, rather than to stake claim on Taoists' attainment being synonymous with that of a Buddhist or a Confucius adept.ACHKC (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting me and please follow the basic WP rules. "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." Keahapana (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

K, the trouble with references and citable scholarship is both the strength and the weakness of WP. Without knowing your ethnicity or spiritual inclination, let me impress upon you, and Lemean, that Wuji, Lingshan 靈山 and Shengyu 聖域 are the same thing, something I noted the current intro still doesn't get it- primordial universe isn't Wuji, which really should be a state of Nothingness in all creation before that took form. Citable scholastic references- well- there weren't any according to the WP rules, for the simple reason that the Salamanca-ran or Oxbridge western tradition can not yield the scholarship to go with it. Mark my words K, L, the renewal of all faiths must go against that empiricism. By all means adopt the Socratic modus operandus, but to truly gauge the overall picture, one must resort to the Platonic induction which was the closet the Graeco-Roman philosophia ever got to, knowing the mechanics of the Heaven.ACHKC (talk)