貞人

我唔知點解我可以miss咗條咁撚大嘅線索

話說甲骨文入面做占卜或者解卜嘅人叫「貞人」。大概係商朝嘅祭師。

「貞」字同「真」字係咪同源就不得而知，我只知讀音同字形係好似。

再加上以前發現啲「巧合」，感覺成件事個脈絡開始出....

話說《康熙字典》引《說文》：卜問也。从卜，貝，以爲贄。 --- 照計真係錯嘅。（仲有少少俗套𠻹） 隻眼先至係重點呀ching，唔係貝嚟㗎。

商朝叫「貞」，道家就叫「真人」，印度叫 Jain，古埃及可能係 followers of horus...。

【應該係巧合】 上網睇啲 youtuber 9up 道家歷史講起「真人」，話個「真」字點嚟。

一睇嚇親，又係隻眼。

網上《說文》話「真」咁解：僊人變形而登天也。此眞之本義也。經典但言誠實，無言眞實者。諸子百家乃有眞字耳，然其字古矣。古文作[??]，非倉頡以前已有眞人乎。

《說文》嘅解釋真係耐人尋味。佢話「真」字本身係講緊練仙嘅嘢，儒家經典唔用呢個字，諸子百家先會用。但係隻字源遠流長，可能係倉頡之前已經有。（即係唔係華夏文字嚟？！）

道家仙人同古埃及嘅魔法符號、共濟會嘅標誌咁似，應該係巧合嚟，除非唔係。不過有潛質講到似層層似乎呃得下人。

至於嗰啲眼係咩嚟...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Horus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_and_Compasses (有時入面係畫隻眼)

The Attributes of the Noble

It looks like the same thing pierces through this façade of reality all the time.

< The Attributes of the Noble>

"the author of this discourse, Muhammad al-Tusi, had it in his mind to write a concise treatise describing the ways of the awliya' and the methods of the seers according to the principles of the wayfarers of the Path (tariqah) and the seekers of the Truth (haqiqah) and one based on the principles of reason and tradition, containing the subtle theoretical and practical points that constitute the kernel and essence of that discipline."

- Nasir al-din Tusi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi

"Ittihad is not what some shortsighted people imagine, that it is the becoming one of the creature with God, the Exalted. Greatly exalted is He above that!'

Rather, it means seeing all as Him, without being constrained to say that everything other than Him is from Him and so all are one.

Rather, his vision is so illumined with the light of His manifestation, Exalted is His station, that he does not see other than Him, there remaining no seer, seen, or sight, and all become one.

At this stage, it is known that the one who decläred "I am the Truth" and the one who said, "Glory be to Me, how great is My majesty," did not claim divinity but negated his egohood and affirmed the ipseity of Someone other than himself, and this is the desired goal.",

- Nasir al-din Tusi

"In wahdah (oneness) there is no wayfarer or wayfaring, way and destination, search, seeker, and the sought, and everything perishes except His Face. This matter has neither an affirmation and its explanation, nor a negation and its explanation; for affirmation and negation are opposites and duality is the source of multiplicity.

Here there is neither negation nor affirmation, neither negation öf negation nor affirmation of affirmation, neither negation of affirmation nor affirmation of negation. And this is called fana (annihilation), for the return of creation is by fana even as its origin was from adam (non-existence)"

Nasir al-din Tusi

circa 44:49 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5oSOsnxzgY Tusi: The Greatest Astronomer in History? - Let's Talk Religion

43:42 than meets the eye on the one hand is smileism itself while of course strongly emphasizing reason and intellect also

43:49 has a quite strong mystical side there's an inherent mysticism in the doctrine of

43:54 the Imam and the esoteric interpretations and practices are certainly sometimes mystical in

44:00 character in fact in the SAU there's a section where the role of the Imm is expressed

44:06 in quite mystical ways and where the doctrines of the ismileies whom he calls the people of unity are presented as

44:12 almost monistic in character quote in the eyes of the people of unity there is

44:18 neither this nor that neither truth nor falsity neither multiplicity nor oneness

44:23 neither resurrection nor religious law neither outward nor inward neither origin nor return everything is he and

44:31 apart from him there exists nothing nothing in nothing suffice it not that

44:37 thy lord is witness over all things and furthermore there is actually another work in which Tuzi tackles the

44:44 question of mysticism and mystical experiences like union and fa more

44:49 headon this is a work called the osaf lashra the attributes of the noble the

44:55 attribution of this work to Tuzi isn't agreed upon by everyone partly because it seems to differ so much from his

45:00 approach in other works but that in itself isn't really reason enough to reject it as authentic in the preface to

45:06 the book Atuzi claims that is a kind of companion to his earlier work of ethics thei that we talked about and clearly

45:13 states what his intention with the book is quote "The author of this discourse Muhammad Atusi had it in his mind to

45:20 write a concise treatise describing the ways of the ayah and the methods of the seers according to the principles of the

45:26 wayfarers of the path and the seekers of the truth and one based on the principles of reason and tradition

45:32 containing the subtle theoretical and practical points that constitute the kernel and essence of that discipline

45:39 what follows is a discourse in six parts each containing six subp parts that

45:44 discuss different requirements on the mystical or spiritual path such as faith and sincerity aestheticism and seclusion

45:52 patience and thankfulness contemplation of oneself and the external world and many other features and once one reaches

45:59 the higher stations of the path such things like love and complete submission to the reality of God the seeker can

46:05 experience union it with God the oneness of all being and the annihilation fa of

46:12 the self or ego here it becomes clear that Tuzi has a quite sophisticated and

46:17 proper understanding of the intricacies of the Sufi doctrine on union and annihilation quote it is not what some

46:25 short-sighted people imagine that it is the becoming one of the creature with God the exalted greatly exalted is he

46:32 above that rather it means seeing all as him without being constrained to say that everything other than him is from

46:39 him and so all are one rather this vision is so illumined with the light of his manifestation exalted as his station

46:46 that he does not see other than him there remaining no seer seen or sight and all become One at this stage it is

46:54 known that the one who declared I am the truth and the one who said glory be to me how great is my majesty did not claim

47:00 divinity but negated his egohood and affirm the absidity of someone other than himself and this is the desired

47:08 goal speaking of the highest stage of fa or complete annihilation of the self Tuzi

47:14 says in wa oneness there is no wayf farer or wayfairing way and destination

47:21 search seeker and the sought and everything perishes except his face this

47:26 matter has neither an affirmation and explanation nor a negation and explanation for affirmation and negation

47:32 are opposites and duality is the source of multiplicity here there is neither

47:38 negation nor affirmation neither negation of negation nor affirmation of

47:44 affirmation neither negation of affirmation nor affirmation of negation and this is called fa annihilation for

47:51 the return of creation is by fa even as its origins was from Adam non-existence

47:57 this is clearly not some critical philosopher or theologian that presents a bad straw man picture of Sufi

Awsaf al Ashraf - The Attributes of the Noble

Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

Introduction

Prelude

Concerning the Starting Point of the Journey and its Requisites

Section One: On Faith

Section Two: On Steadfastness

Section Three: On Intention

Section Four: On Truthfulness

Section Five: On Penitence (Inabah)

Section Six: On Sincerity (Ikhlas)

On the Removal of Obstacles and Hindrances from the Wayfarer's Path

Section One: On Repentance

Section Two: On Zuhd

Section Three: On Poverty (Faqr)

Section Four: On Self-Discipline (Riyadah)

Section Five: On Self-Scrutiny (Muhasabah) and Watchfulness (Muraqabah)

Section Six: On Godfearing (Taqwa)

On Wayfaring in the Quest of Perfection, and the States of the Wayfarer

Section One: On Solitude

Section Two: On Contemplation

Section Three: On Fear and Grief

Section Four: On Hope

Section Five: On Patience

Section Six: On Thankfulness

On the States That Occur During Wayfaring Before the Attainment of the Goal

Section One: On Aspiration

Section Two: On Longing

Section Three: On Love

Section Four: On Gnosis

Section Five: On Certainty

Section Six: On Rest

Concerning the States of Those Who Attain Realization

Section One: On Tawakkul

Section Two: On Rida

Section Three: On Taslim

Section Five: On Ittihad

Section Six: On Wahdah

On Fana

五月

 天氣暖咗

人忽然冇咁大食欲

呢個幾星期好自然咁大致上 one meal per day

夜晚唔多肚餓

希望成個夏天都維持到

我而家夜晚瞓覺都會覺得稍涼

身體能量算係平和

幾唔錯

浩然之氣

《孟子》講「浩然之氣」係令我發現原來儒家傳統唔係純粹 on9 嘅契機之一。

「敢問何謂浩然之氣？」

曰：「難言也。其為氣也，至大至剛，以直養而無害，則塞于天地之閒。其為氣也，配義與道；無是，餒也。是集義所生者，非義襲而取之也。行有不慊於心，則餒矣。我故曰，告子未嘗知義，以其外之也。必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。無若宋人然：宋人有閔其苗之不長而揠之者，芒芒然歸。謂其人曰：『今日病矣，予助苗長矣。』其子趨而往視之，苗則槁矣。天下之不助苗長者寡矣。以為無益而舍之者，不耘苗者也；助之長者，揠苗者也。非徒無益，而又害之。」

不過嗰段字唔太易明，然後後面原來係搭單附送咗「拔苗助長」嘅故仔。

由於花咗少少時間嘗試理解，喺度寫返心得同未決之疑

 「必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。」

呢句其實好撚緊要，完全係人類存在於宇宙嘅奧義之一。道家叫做「無為」，new age 叫做 manifestation。 點樣令到一件事發生？孟子話：唔好放低佢，但又唔好助長。

「正」可能係通「征」。

似乎朱子語類有詳細解釋：

「必有事焉，而勿正心」，此言「正心」，自與大學語脈不同。此「正」字是期待其效之意。「仁者先難而後獲」。正心是先獲意思，先獲是先有求獲之心。古人自有這般語。公羊傳云：「師出不正反，戰不正勝。」此「正」字，與孟子說「正心」之「正」一般。言師出不可必期其反，戰不可必期其勝也。賀孫

問「必有事焉而勿正」之義。曰：「正，猶等待之意。趙岐解云：『不可望其福。』雖說意粗了，其文義卻不錯。此正如『師出不正反，戰不正勝』之『正』。古人用字之意如此，言但當從事於此，而勿便等待其效之意。」或問：「此便是助長否？」曰：「『正』，未是助長，待其效而不得，則漸漸助之長矣。譬之栽木，初栽即是望其長，望之之久而不如意，則揠苗矣！明道曰『下言之漸重』，此言卻是。」後因論「仁者先難而後獲」，洽曰：「先解『勿正』字，頗有後獲之意。」曰：「頗有此意。」曰：「如此解，則於用工處儘有條理。」曰：「聖賢之言，條理精密，往往如此。但看得不切，錯認了他文義，則并與其意而失之耳。」洽

但呢件事同浩然之氣究竟有咩關係？！？ 諗唔通。 所以後世啲人可以將「拔苗助長」呢樣嘢當係孩童故事咁講，但從來都唔會提半句「浩然之氣」⋯ 大家都諗唔透有乜撚嘢關係。

另外呢度嘅「義」雖然理論上係「魚與熊掌，捨生取義」嘅「義」，但你當成「意義」咁理解都係OK嘅。告子作為一個徹頭徹尾嘅 relativist (eg. 性猶湍水也)，自然冇內置嘅「義」(morals ~= meaning ~= motivations)，冇 compass 冇動力，自然擺爛 (i.e. 餒)。但一個 fundamental relativist 確實可以不動心。

講起不動心，「必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。」  應該係講緊不動心啩。咁就好 make sense。有樣嘢你好著緊嘅，點樣不動心？孟子嘅講法係勿征心、勿忘、勿助長。 而告子就根本覺得咩都冇所謂，所以不動心，雖然唔動心但冇浩然之氣。

但始終令人好 frustrate[d] 嘅係，一講到 meaning (義), will (必) 同 stillness (不動心) 嗰陣，啲經典就同我(哋)一齊 hang 機，講得到喉唔到肺。所以我一開始先話呢句關乎「人類存在於宇宙嘅奧義之一」⋯⋯ 但一係我未明，一係個答案仍然係不能以言語描述。

PS: 後來睇返，個關係其實係喺度嘅。心動就會行動(助長)，行動就會壞事。所以孟子講返點樣等啲嘢自然搞掂，唔好亂咁嚟自己郁手搞禍啲嘢。而唔助長嘅方法就係不動心。 呢種態度幾近道家，但修行嘅道理萬法不離其中，所以講起個人修行，都唯有係咁。

Forgetting

It seems recently I am starting to forget what I wrote.

Sometimes I re-read my writings and have no idea what the fuck I was trying to say. (Generally I eventually recall most of it, but still...)

The missing link in Bayes' Theorem

Bayes' Theorem implies that if you have sufficiently strong priors, evidence to the contrary does not matter. It is, sort of a "proof" (the irony of this word in this context is not lost on yours truly) of "whatever you believe is true, is true".

But where's the catch? What makes the argument sound so flimsy?

It just occurred to me what the problem is -- the assumption that "death" is real.

Our idea of objective truth is that it is dictated and judged by "death" and "death" alone.

The only way to finally determine whether somebody is delusional or not is whether they die while following their beliefs. Anything else seems to be a matter of opinion, where upon civilized people agree to disagree.

But what if they don't die? If the idea of death is truly illusional, *then* we must accept, in a kind of collegial spirit, that all opinions held by fellow souls must be equally valid. To denounce anyone's opinion is to curse with death -- ineffective of course, but to the accurser it is.

New Loans to cover old loans

In Hong Kong, it's well known that there is a cap on the interest (48%) one can charge for loans per Money Lender's Ordinance.

Now let's say Mr. X needs $100.  He has an apartment that is valued at approx $1000. He takes a $100 loan from an unscrupulous money lender, repayable over 10 years, at 20% p.a. secured against the apartment. The loan contains a clause that says if the borrower defaults on any payment, the whole loan including future interests would be immediately payable.

Now, the kind of person who'd take a loan from "money lenders" at 20% interest instead of "banks" is the kind who's not particularly creditworthy. So, almost inevitably, Mr. X fails to make a payment towards the loan, let's say 2 years later.

So, in the first year principle+interest=$100+$20,  let's say repayment is $30

second year, principle+interest=$90+18, let's say $30 is repaid as well
after the second year, principle is $78

If Mr. X defaults at this point, the remaining interest (8 years) is $78 * 20% * 8 = 124.8, so Mr. X is liable for $78+124.8 = $202.

Mr. X still has an apartment that is valued at $1000, and he doesn't want to lose it, so the money lenders suggest Mr. X to take out another $202 loan to cover the original loan. It's more risky for the lenders, so interest rate is now 30%.

Mr. X obviously still has to repay the loan, and given that he couldn't repay the original $100 loan to begin with, he struggles to repay a $200 loan. After a couple months, he fails to make a payment on time again. This time he's liable for paying $750 (the principle plus 30% interest). The money lender makes an application to court to recover $750 from Mr X, who eventually has to sell his apartment to repay the outstanding amount.

So, in less than 3 years time, the money lender lends out $100 and has an "effective" return of almost $800+

If you take a broader view, that's pretty much a 200% effective interest rate...

Is this even legal? I pondered this question when I first heard of such stories.

And apparently it is:

HONG KONG SAI KUNG NGONG WO RESORT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED（香港西貢昂窩渡假村發展有限公司）V. TOTALCORP (NOMINEES) LIMITED [2022] HKCFA 28

""" if the parties agree that money advanced on a fresh loan on new terms will be used to pay off an old loan, they can give effect to the transaction by set-off without having to pay over the money and then take it back. The agreement can be taken at face value. But there is nothing in any of these cases to suggest that if the parties agree to vary the terms of a loan, by extending the term or changing the rate of interest, that must count as entering into a new loan. In either case, the law gives effect to what, as a matter of construction, appears to have been the intention of the parties evinced by the language they have used. If it is expressed to be a new loan, it is treated as a new loan, notwithstanding that the money was used to pay off an old loan. If it varies the terms of an old loan, the agreement will vary the terms without creating a new loan. """

In the judgment, it seems valid for lenders/borrowers to  create a new loan contract where before which the effective interest rate might exceed the statutory limit, it would not have been exceeded afterwards.

The case doesn't directly touch upon the issue I mentioned, but if it's allowed to create a new loan to cover an old loan and the legality of the new loan only rests on the terms of the new loan without reference to the old, then I don't see why the situation above would be illegal.