how to not mention God.
el...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>>
>> carol viau wrote in message
>> <0P9K1.3709$ZY.36...@HME2.newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>>
>> >Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed
>> >to be about tao.
why discuss anything about the tao then? (there's plenty of space
available here for side issues)
>Tao is not a deity.
you're just guessing about this, just offering another definition of
the tao
>The excuse that god is part of
>> >tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer
>> >are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that?
please offer up a list of things that are a part of the tao that your
highness deams appropriate to discuss here. Then I'll come back and
edit your list.
>>The ideology behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao.
Oh I'm sure that if we search through all the books we can find some
link and thus validate the claim that some tiny part of the space in
this newsgroup is worthy of being a medium for that discussion
>
>Which in turn involked response from one who know nothing of it.
>
>> It's up to you to make the
>> connections between all religions.
>
>Yes I agree, have a "nice" day, somewhere else.
>No one cares what you think it might be.
That's not true and you know it...otherwise you wouldn't be having a
hemroid over this
>
>> If you look hard enough, you'll find the
>> connections.
>
>If you don't look at all you will eventually notice that
>they were never not connected and needed no "connections".
that doesn't sound like an approach that will work for all people at
all times
look, if you want to short-circuit the God-talk, just open up a nice
topic on chi and watch how everybody is attracted by the high quality
chi talk. This is the same advise I give to fundamentalist
christians. I say, don't convert, just be so cool with Jesus that
everybody will want to get in on it.
Esther1912
Look, there is always something lost in the translation. I think
you "anti-god" folks here are going to alot of trouble trying not
to communicate. Just a personal observation. Further Elg says
topic on chi and watch how everybody is attracted by the high quality
chi talk"<
That would be too easy Elg! And there may not be all that much interest in the
topic <G>
Jay writes >Pass the Popcorn<
Moonshadao writes: >Bunch of interesting stuff from the Tao of
Physics and Joseph Needham's work ...<
This topic IS old BUT it doesn't go away. It doesn't go away
because there is truth in the questions asked and the observations
made by many more than one person. It is strange how all the
potty mouth BS and all the "yang style" attempts to suppress the
truth simply - make it more alive because, as you say well Elg,
its a matter of denial not truth.
The question resurfaces over and over again because that is how
the "water of truth" is in its nature ..
Tao is G-d was the center of a number of such observations
which surfaced throughout University settings all through the
early 20's and 30's and they were all based, at least in part, on
"new" ideas from China. The very first TTC had just been
translated to English in 1919 (called the Tao Te King). It was a
hot topic of the academia set at the time. It would become very
much alive in these academic settings too. The material in the
book, would stir considerable controversy in a western world that
had never heard such ideas. Still, as was and is the case, many
would come to realize that there simply are common threads at
work here. Capra does go on to say so in his book, as does
Wolinsky in the "Tao of Chaos" but the folks here on the APT
like to omit those passages from the books they quote.
If Moonshadao was not so deep in denial him/herself , he/she
would have read further and discovered considerable discussion
regarding differences AND similarities between Joseph Needham
and Capra's opinions which come to the same conclusions my
friend Madelynn came to a number of years ago in her work, "
The Search for Tao," which is that the real problem is the
Chinese perception of a god - which is in a diminished capacity, is
a being and is thus limited (as are the gods of Hinduism) to
personal containment within one's frame of reference. The Tao
(as is Brahman) OTOH goes way beyond such containment, is
undefined and undefinable and beyond human comprehension.
It is Christianity that begans to contain god in a smaller mind set -
having Jesus become god made human, but the actual perceptions
of G-d as the undefined and undefinable "whatever" exist in both
the east (China) and the west AND are far beyond any limited
mindset or any perception of a "being" and which has been a
Jewish perception for as far back as Judaism extends some 5758
years.
G-d (which is why it is spelled G-d and not God by most Jews) is
exactly the same perception IMO (and many others) as the Tao
concept in China. Undefined, undefinable - beyond human
imagination, physics, conception etc and Tao is responsible for
creation. Creation can be seen as the development of Natural
Law (Yin and Yang) and all that proceeds from Yin/Yang
processes - thus these concepts of the Tao and Natural Law are
very similar (if not too close to call) to other modern western
thought such as Mordecai Kaplan's understanding of G-d as a
process NOT a being.
Thus it is reasonable to say G-d/Tao is undefined, undefinable
and beyond human comprehension. G-d/Tao set in motion what
Needham and Capra call "Natural Law(s)." G-d/Tao works
through these Natural Laws, thus as Modecai Kaplan of the
Reconstructionist Movement in Judaism Kaplan says, "G-d then
is process - not a being."
But Elg, this group has been in denial of said similarity for many
years. They debated (almost endlessly) these issues with my
friend, Madelynn and they debate them with me (a hint here ...a
number of people on this NG believe Madelynn and I are the
same person.)
IMO though - The very fact that the subject never settles and is
always coming to the surface is proof enough that the topic is
beginning to "span the bridges between East and West" as
Madelynn used to say.
In the experience of most historians, youcan't kill an idea whose time has come
[likewise, you can NOT
initiate an idea whose time has NOT come either!] - but this
group likes to bang it collective head on the wall and try! The
group will collectively potty mouth anyone who asks the
question. The court jester here - Rick/Spawn will try to
intimidate and rattle peopleAND as is the pattern, when it all gets
too hot ....very interestingly... some strange flame war from the
outside "mysteriously" appears and distracts everyone long
enough for the topic to die off ... for a while. This pattern I've
noticed in just 9 months on the group here!
So for me, I see "as TTC Chapter 9 goes ..."
"To hold upright and fill it,
Is not as good as stopping.
When one pounds it out and gives it a point,
It won't be preserved very long."
The APT Newsgroup, IMO has tried to pound the point, that in
their opinion, Tao is not a god ... but in doing so the point is
never preseserved. Although they make this case well and often -
What they do not hear those of us who disagree say (and thus
why the point comes to be debated over and over again) .. is
"we agree! that Tao is not a god. Hear what we are saying is
...Tao is G-d - whatever G-d/Tao is or isn't! So this is why IMO,
the subject never rests, why "the point is never preserved."
But then - there are none so blind ... as those that choose NOT to
see.
Respectfully,
Esther
*The Past has a Vote not a Veto ...
**Judaism is an evolving Religion
*** A Joyous Jew brings the world a tiny bit closer to Tikkun Olam each day
lisa
[...]
Whoever you are, go away.
Lisa
Mozilla
>
> Elg 1...@earthlink.net(also Madelynn) writes: >Well Tao is certainly not a god.
> Look, there is always something lost in the translation. I think
> you "anti-god" folks here are going to alot of trouble trying not
> to communicate. Just a personal observation. Further Elg says
> "look, if you want to short-circuit the God-talk, just open up a nice
> topic on chi and watch how everybody is attracted by the high quality
> chi talk"<
>
> That would be too easy Elg! And there may not be all that much interest in the
> topic <G>
You do seem to find it fun to talk to your alter egos don't you?
Your bullshit stinks madelynn and It can be smelled in everything
you say regardless of what ISP and screen name you use to say it
with. Your setups are obvious.
>
> Jay writes >Pass the Popcorn<
> Moonshadao writes: >Bunch of interesting stuff from the Tao of
> Physics and Joseph Needham's work ...<
>
> This topic IS old BUT it doesn't go away.
>It doesn't go away
> because there is truth in the questions asked and the observations
> made by many more than one person.
Most of these "people" are you. You have used this ploy many times in
the past and didn't work then, and it won't work now. Your multiple
screen names all saying the same thing give you away. Figure it out.
No one wants to discuss god or judaism with you in this forum.
The topic doesn't go away, because you are obsessed with pushing
it in this group, and you won't go away. Get a life madelynn.
> It is strange how all the
> potty mouth BS and all the "yang style" attempts to suppress the
> truth simply - make it more alive because, as you say well Elg,
> its a matter of denial not truth.
>
It is a matter of obsession and delusion. Go delude yourself elsewhere.
You have no point and no one but you cares to to talk to you about it.
Leave and take your other personnas with you.
The rest of your "fucking idiot rant" was snipped here because it
wasn't worth repeating, much less responding to.
NOBODY IN A.P.T. WANTS TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU.
are the big letters easier to read?
go away idiot.
>
>
>
Mozilla
>
> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:00:56 -0400, Tzaddik <rsat...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark wrote:
> >>
> >> carol viau wrote in message
> >> <0P9K1.3709$ZY.36...@HME2.newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> >>
> >> >Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed
> >> >to be about tao.
> why discuss anything about the tao then? (there's plenty of space
> available here for side issues)
> >Tao is not a deity.
> you're just guessing about this, just offering another definition of
> the tao
> >The excuse that god is part of
> >> >tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer
> >> >are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that?
> please offer up a list of things that are a part of the tao that your
> highness deams appropriate to discuss here. Then I'll come back and
> edit your list.
> >>The ideology behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao.
> Oh I'm sure that if we search through all the books we can find some
> link and thus validate the claim that some tiny part of the space in
> this newsgroup is worthy of being a medium for that discussion
Fuck you madelynn
> >Which in turn involked response from one who know nothing of it.
> >
> >> It's up to you to make the
> >> connections between all religions.
> >
> >Yes I agree, have a "nice" day, somewhere else.
> >No one cares what you think it might be.
> That's not true and you know it...otherwise you wouldn't be having a
> hemroid over this
Fuck you madelynn
> >
> >> If you look hard enough, you'll find the
> >> connections.
> >
> >If you don't look at all you will eventually notice that
> >they were never not connected and needed no "connections".
> that doesn't sound like an approach that will work for all people at
> all times
>
> look, if you want to short-circuit the God-talk, just open up a nice
> topic on chi and watch how everybody is attracted by the high quality
> chi talk. This is the same advise I give to fundamentalist
> christians. I say, don't convert, just be so cool with Jesus that
> everybody will want to get in on it.
Eat Shit and Die madelynn.
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
as always you have the power to ignore her.
i find her comments on topic.
i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
for a group of people who have this thing about
"the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
the way things are.
* * *
esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
to leave.
* * *
in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
cautiously or incautiously.
these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
or another.
* * *
jay had the audacity to present an image that seemed to imply
that judeo-christian-islamic traditions had a problem with heresy,
and that taoism did not. but many of you do have a problem with
heresy.
* * *
i forget his name, but the guy who is making the heterodox
list makes be laugh. not because i think he is foolish, but
because i find it a delicious challenge to resolve the establishing
of a heterodox grouping.
* * *
what i think ties these things together is the resolution of
paradox.
some believe "tao is everything."
but many of these same people spend a great deal of time rejecting things.
why?
some believe they are impartial, and
yet must use words that create partiality.
what to do?
in reaching for the heterodox, how do you resolve crossing into
the orthodox?
the wiccans quote, "if it harms none, do what you will."
but what is harm?
paradox largely arises from the making of distinctions.
a boundry between this and that. everything, nothing.
harm. not-harm. heterodoxy. orthodoxy. yin. yang.
tao. not-tao. taoism. not-taoism.
but the world is whole, and boundries are fickle.
how you resolve paradoxes. how you deal with the swirling
motion of yin and yang. how you divide the world.
how you deal with the world and your divisions.
these things are the how of how you live. they are the way
you interact with the tao. everything you do/are has been
a part of the dance. these are the form you give to your
interaction with the tao. these things are the solid reality
of how you understand the tao.
* * *
where do you live?
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Moonshadao
>
>If Moonshadao was not so deep in denial him/herself , he/she
>would have read further and discovered considerable discussion
>regarding differences AND similarities between Joseph Needham
>and Capra's opinions which come to the same conclusions my
>friend Madelynn came to a number of years ago in her work, "
Zhoubu wrote this not me.
Miller Jew wrote:
>
> to "Bo and Linda" (was A Prayer for you all..
>
> saint...@webtv.net (Bo + Linda) wrote:
> >
> >But Tao is Divine,sentient, and Diety,if not
> > what is? No thing?
> >Bo
>
> To answer part of this, follow this track and maybe you'll get closer
> to understandng what the Tao is. From "The Tao of Physics"/ chapter
> "Interpenetration" by F. Capra:
>
> "For the Taoist sages, all phenomema in the world were part of the
> Cosmic Way --The Tao--and the laws followed by the Tao were not laid
> down by any "Divine" lawgiver, but were inherent in its nature. Thus
> we read in the Tao Te Ching:
>
> Man follows the laws of earth;
> Earth follows the laws of heaven;
> Heaven follows the laws of Tao;
> Tao follows the laws of its intrinsic nature.
> (ttc25)
>
> Joseph Needham, in his thorough study of Chinese science and
> civiliation, discusses at great length how the Western concept of
> fundamental laws of nature, has no counterpart in Chinese thought. "In
> the Chinese world-view.. the harmonious cooperation of all beings
> arose, not from the orders of a superior authority external to
> themselves, but from the fact that they were all parts in a hierarchy
> of wholes forming a cosmic pattern, and what they obeyed were the
> internal dictates of their own natures.
>
> According to Needham, The Chinese did not even have a word
> corresponding to the classic Western idea of a 'law of nature'. The
> term which comes closest to fit is "li", which the Neo-Confucian
> philosopher Chu Hsi describes as "the innumerable veinlike patterns
> included in the Tao." Needham translates "li" as "principles of
> organization" and gives the following comment:
>
> In its most ancient meaning, it signifed the pattern in things, the
> markings of jade or fibers in muscle... It acquired the commmon
> dictionary meaning "principle... There is "law" implicit in it, but
> this law is the law to which parts of wholes have to conform by virtue
> of their very existence as parts of whole.. The most important thing
> about parts is that they have to fit precisely into place with other
> parts in the whole organization which they compose."
>
> It is easy to see how such a view led the Chinese thinkers to the idea
> which has only recently been developed in modern physics, that self-
> consistency is the essence of all laws of nature.
>
> ----------
Your arguement is with him.
Gr8tao
Thanks "indessen" , I am sure that this needed to be said.
and you are just the one to say it.
Gr8tao
lisa
>
> lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
> >Esther1912 (aka Typhoid Mary) wrote:
> >Whoever you are, go away.
>
> as always you have the power to ignore her.
I am ignoring her, as much as not reading what she is saying. When one
is exposed to typhoid in a village, however, can one merely say I will
ignore it and go on living here, day to day?
I really don't care much whether this person hangs here or not, but
again, I feel a self-imposed obligation to express my misgivings about
this person's presence here; and I would warn anyone reading this person
to know that they are a pathological liar and consummate manipulator.
>
> i find her comments on topic.
>
> i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
>
> for a group of people who have this thing about
> "the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
> the way things are.
you don't consider yourself part of the group? my issue is not with
you, peter, so will defer on responding to your personal observance.
>
> * * *
>
> esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
> i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
> she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
HAHAHAHAHAHA This person is purposely irritating.
> i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
> and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
> things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
Maybe if I inject a little of it into my system I can get the feel of
typhus to see if I like it, right?
> it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
> and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
> solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
> to leave.
Baloney. This has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do
with malignancy. I would almost think you know something we don't,
peter. Why do you step forward to defend this harpy when you've let
others be broasted alive without a peep? What do you know?
>
> * * *
>
> in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
> and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
Bring me its head on a platter and I'll run some tests. Fair enough?
> cautiously or incautiously.
> these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
> or another.
You're right. Seeing people that I CARE ABOUT getting screwed over,
surviving it, then to see the one responsible breezing back in as if
nothing happened and expecting those same people to act as if nothing
had happened is my reason. It is a studied and contrived return and is
done unquestionably for motives having nothing to do with this place.
So easy for you to take the paternalistic role, peter. The
dispassionate observer who will guide us through our problems, right?
i hear what you're saying, but frankly, this matter is outside of these
questions, at least as far as i'm concerned. this persona is in a class
by itself and is the exception to the rule. it is the closest thing to
evil as i've ever seen. what is evil? i don't know what it is, but i
know it when i see it, and it is.
as to responding any further on the subject of this person, like the
last time "it" arrived, i said my piece and then faded out. likewise,
this is all i will be saying on the subject this time in the newsgroup.
regards,
lisa
lisa
>
> lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
> >k...@springhaven.springhaven.org wrote:
> >> lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> >Esther1912 (aka Typhoid Mary) wrote:
> >> >Whoever you are, go away.
> >> as always you have the power to ignore her.
> >I am ignoring her, as much as not reading what she is saying. When one
> >is exposed to typhoid in a village, however, can one merely say I will
> >ignore it and go on living here, day to day?
>
> its your response that you lose control over.
who has lost control? i know exactly what i'm saying and take full
responsibility for it. as to disease, i'm as crazy as they come and
have never said otherwise. does it really matter?
>
> >I really don't care much whether this person hangs here or not, but
> >again, I feel a self-imposed obligation to express my misgivings about
> >this person's presence here; and I would warn anyone reading this person
> >to know that they are a pathological liar and consummate manipulator.
>
> i feel, then, that i should mention that you are mistaken.
> even?
mistaken about what? about not caring? oh i have strong feelings about
this person and have never hidden it. as to this persona hanging around
here, that too, is out of my hands.
>
> >> i find her comments on topic.
> >> i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
> >> for a group of people who have this thing about
> >> "the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
> >> the way things are.
> >you don't consider yourself part of the group?
>
> yes and no as always.
> words reach limits.
why spend your energy trying to change the way things are?
>
> >my issue is not with
> >you, peter, so will defer on responding to your personal observance.
>
> maybe it should be.
why is that? are you this persona? or is someone you care
about--someone you're protecting--this persona?
>
> >> esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
> >> i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
> >> she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
> >HAHAHAHAHAHA This person is purposely irritating.
>
> true, but not in the fashion she suspects.
this is open for speculation, i suppose. neither of us can know for
sure now, can we?
>
> >> i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
> >> and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
> >> things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
> >Maybe if I inject a little of it into my system I can get the feel of
> >typhus to see if I like it, right?
>
> i shan't respond to the rest of the typhus thing.
> your bias.
>
> the analogy is streched thin.
about as thin as the stretchings of the persona.
> >> it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
> >> and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
> >> solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
> >> to leave.
> >Baloney. This has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do
> >with malignancy.
>
> no. you cling to your perception of malignancy.
as my lungs cling to air perhaps. no more, no less.
> >I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
>
> i do. and i am not sharing that information.
trust you, right? you know the *real* truth.
> >Why do you step forward to defend this harpy when you've let
> >others be broasted alive without a peep?
>
> mostly because you are attacking the messanger and not
> paying attention to the message.
the message, in this case, is the messenger.
>
> >What do you know?
>
> the world is whole.
> which parts shall you shut out?
indeed. i and my views are also part of this whole world. including my
typhus analogy. don't mean to sound cutesy, but you asked for it.
>
> >> in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
> >> and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
> >Bring me its head on a platter and I'll run some tests. Fair enough?
>
> go use a platter as a pillow.
oooh, are we getting near hissy level yet?
> >> cautiously or incautiously.
> >> these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
> >> or another.
> >You're right. Seeing people that I CARE ABOUT getting screwed over,
> >surviving it, then to see the one responsible breezing back in as if
> >nothing happened and expecting those same people to act as if nothing
> >had happened is my reason. It is a studied and contrived return and is
> >done unquestionably for motives having nothing to do with this place.
>
> you ask me what i know.
> what is it that you know about people getting screwed over?
> really. you hold a personal grudge and it clouds your judgment.
personal grudge? what might that be? old news. this has nothing to do
with that. really.
> just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
> about it.
>
> >So easy for you to take the paternalistic role, peter. The
> >dispassionate observer who will guide us through our problems, right?
>
> nope.
>
> attack me some more.
no attack intended there. you are the one taking the paternalistic
role, not me. you've admitted you know something but won't share it.
that's supposed to be the magic medicine which makes everythign all
better?
>
> >i hear what you're saying, but frankly, this matter is outside of these
> >questions, at least as far as i'm concerned. this persona is in a class
> >by itself and is the exception to the rule. it is the closest thing to
> >evil as i've ever seen. what is evil? i don't know what it is, but i
> >know it when i see it, and it is.
> >as to responding any further on the subject of this person, like the
> >last time "it" arrived, i said my piece and then faded out. likewise,
> >this is all i will be saying on the subject this time in the newsgroup.
>
> the world is whole.
> you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
> questions".
there is only so many hours in a day, peter. as you mentioned above,
why spend even this bit of typing on what i consider to be a moot
point? every letter in this post is energy food for that thing waiting
in the wings. dammitall i've given it exactly what it wants. happy
now?
lisa
dragon...@my-dejanews.com
esthe...@aol.com (Esther1912) wrote:
> Elg 1...@earthlink.net writes: >Well Tao is certainly not a god.
> Look, there is always something lost in the translation. I think
> you "anti-god" folks here are going to alot of trouble trying not
> to communicate. Just a personal observation. Further Elg says
> "look, if you want to short-circuit the God-talk, just open up a nice
> topic on chi and watch how everybody is attracted by the high quality
> chi talk"<
>
> That would be too easy Elg! And there may not be all that much interest in
the
> topic <G>
>
> Jay writes >Pass the Popcorn<
> Moonshadao writes: >Bunch of interesting stuff from the Tao of
> Physics and Joseph Needham's work ...<
>
> This topic IS old BUT it doesn't go away. It doesn't go away
> because there is truth in the questions asked and the observations
> made by many more than one person. It is strange how all the
> potty mouth BS and all the "yang style" attempts to suppress the
> truth simply - make it more alive because, as you say well Elg,
> its a matter of denial not truth.
>
There is no truth. Tao as the undefineable is certainly not
your Jewish god. That is simple fact, nothing true or false about it.
> The question resurfaces over and over again because that is how
> the "water of truth" is in its nature ..
Seems to me that it resurfaces because you want it to.
>
> Tao is G-d was the center of a number of such observations
> which surfaced throughout University settings all through the
> early 20's and 30's and they were all based, at least in part, on
> "new" ideas from China.
What can I say, except that they were entirely stupid about what chinese
thought was. Their "new" ideas were stupidity.
> The very first TTC had just been
> translated to English in 1919 (called the Tao Te King). It was a
> hot topic of the academia set at the time.
Bound to have been full of errors. It no doubt was inadequately researched
and interpreted with christian missionary bias.
> It would become very
> much alive in these academic settings too. The material in the
> book, would stir considerable controversy in a western world that
> had never heard such ideas.
And continually misunderstood them, to the point of misrepresenting them.
> Still, as was and is the case, many
> would come to realize that there simply are common threads at
> work here.
Yes, I agree. Stupidity seems to be the theme in both what you have to say
and what they thought.
> Capra does go on to say so in his book, as does
> Wolinsky in the "Tao of Chaos" but the folks here on the APT
> like to omit those passages from the books they quote.
>
> If Moonshadao was not so deep in denial him/herself , he/she
> would have read further and discovered considerable discussion
> regarding differences AND similarities between Joseph Needham
> and Capra's opinions which come to the same conclusions my
> friend Madelynn came to a number of years ago in her work, "
> The Search for Tao,"
Your theories are nowhere near the work of Capra and Needham.
You are so self important that you think you are someone that should
be taken seriously. Please drop the pretense that Madelynn was your friend.
I believe everyone knows you are Madelynn. Your theme alone is
a defining link to your past. Dejanews comparisons are very easily made.
> which is that the real problem is the
> Chinese perception of a god - which is in a diminished capacity, is
> a being and is thus limited (as are the gods of Hinduism) to
> personal containment within one's frame of reference. The Tao
> (as is Brahman) OTOH goes way beyond such containment, is
> undefined and undefinable and beyond human comprehension.
If I were chinese, I would take that as an insult.
You pretend to know what chinese believe. You cannot speak for them.
You know nothing of their beliefs.
>
> It is Christianity that begans to contain god in a smaller mind set -
> having Jesus become god made human, but the actual perceptions
> of G-d as the undefined and undefinable "whatever" exist in both
> the east (China) and the west AND are far beyond any limited
> mindset or any perception of a "being" and which has been a
> Jewish perception for as far back as Judaism extends some 5758
> years.
These remarks are most ethnocentric. It completely disregards the fact
that the Idea of tao is at least as old or older and developed without
any mention of a god of any kind. You seem to be determined to
make a connection with a jewish god to something that has no godhead.
>
> G-d (which is why it is spelled G-d and not God by most Jews) is
> exactly the same perception IMO (and many others) as the Tao
> concept in China.
Why is it that you are the only person to say so?
> Undefined, undefinable - beyond human
> imagination, physics, conception etc and Tao is responsible for
> creation. Creation can be seen as the development of Natural
> Law (Yin and Yang) and all that proceeds from Yin/Yang
> processes - thus these concepts of the Tao and Natural Law are
> very similar (if not too close to call) to other modern western
> thought such as Mordecai Kaplan's understanding of G-d as a
> process NOT a being.
No one cares. This is your contention. No one else has these
hang ups about the similarities. No one else is doing any comparing.
Just you. What you have to say has been read here before, why must
it be reinterated? If anyone cared in the first place, you might
have had a point, but from what I have seen here in the past, your
following seems to be very miniscule. Your opinion is hardly worth
the disruption it brings from Spawn and others arguing with you.
Why would you persist in your attempt to convert us, when it is
apparently obvious that you are very unliked in this group?
>
> Thus it is reasonable to say G-d/Tao is undefined, undefinable
> and beyond human comprehension. G-d/Tao set in motion what
> Needham and Capra call "Natural Law(s)." G-d/Tao works
> through these Natural Laws, thus as Modecai Kaplan of the
> Reconstructionist Movement in Judaism Kaplan says, "G-d then
> is process - not a being."
No one cares what Modecai Kaplan has to say. This is not a jewish
news group. Your comparison is unwelcome.
>
> But Elg, this group has been in denial of said similarity for many
> years. They debated (almost endlessly) these issues with my
> friend, Madelynn and they debate them with me (a hint here ...a
> number of people on this NG believe Madelynn and I are the
> same person.)
hint again to ELG: she is the same person
and as someone said here earlier, ELG probably is too.
Your ruse is know by many Madelynn.
>
> IMO though - The very fact that the subject never settles and is
> always coming to the surface is proof enough that the topic is
> beginning to "span the bridges between East and West" as
> Madelynn used to say.
>
There is no need of a bridge. The east does just fine without the
many problems of the western monotheistic religious ethic. Such
a bridge would serve only those stuck in the west. Those in the east
have no desire to cross it.
> In the experience of most historians, youcan't kill an idea whose time has
come
Yours has not come.
> [likewise, you can NOT
> initiate an idea whose time has NOT come either!]
Why do you try then?
> - but this
> group likes to bang it collective head on the wall and try! The
> group will collectively potty mouth anyone who asks the
> question. The court jester here - Rick/Spawn will try to
> intimidate and rattle peopleAND as is the pattern, when it all gets
> too hot ....very interestingly... some strange flame war from the
> outside "mysteriously" appears and distracts everyone long
> enough for the topic to die off ... for a while.
Doesn't that tell you something? People would rather be distracted
in a stupid flame war over stupid things, rather than spend one more
minute having to deal with YOUR TOPIC. Take a hint from it.
Figure it out.
> This pattern I've
> noticed in just 9 months on the group here!
>
> So for me, I see "as TTC Chapter 9 goes ..."
>
> "To hold upright and fill it,
> Is not as good as stopping.
> When one pounds it out and gives it a point,
> It won't be preserved very long."
>
> The APT Newsgroup, IMO has tried to pound the point, that in
> their opinion, Tao is not a god ... but in doing so the point is
> never preseserved. Although they make this case well and often -
> What they do not hear those of us who disagree say (and thus
> why the point comes to be debated over and over again) .. is
> "we agree! that Tao is not a god. Hear what we are saying is
> ...Tao is G-d - whatever G-d/Tao is or isn't! So this is why IMO,
> the subject never rests, why "the point is never preserved."
There is no G-d , so tao cannot not be it.
There are gods and a judeo-christian god
but as Miller Jew has indicated they are not chinese ideology for tao.
So your point is pointless.
>
> But then - there are none so blind ... as those that choose NOT to
> see.
>
> Respectfully,
> Esther
>
> *The Past has a Vote not a Veto ...
> **Judaism is an evolving Religion
> *** A Joyous Jew brings the world a tiny bit closer to Tikkun Olam each day
>
Your ego surpasses your stupidity.
Dragon_Pearl
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
JayBuzin
[...]
>jay had the audacity to present an image that seemed to imply
>that judeo-christian-islamic traditions had a problem with heresy,
>and that taoism did not.
Some folks get more milage out of my posts than I do!
> but many of you do have a problem with heresy.
Tis a straw-deputy-dawg thang.
Thanx for the many words
o ye of many quest-ions.
{:-])))
for those whose servers have intermittens;
plk's more-complete post was:
>lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
>>Esther1912 (aka Typhoid Mary) wrote:
>>Whoever you are, go away.
>
>as always you have the power to ignore her.
>
>i find her comments on topic.
>
>i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
>
>for a group of people who have this thing about
> "the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
> the way things are.
>
>* * *
>
>esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
>i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
>she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
>
>i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
>and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
>things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
>
>it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
>and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
>solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
>to leave.
>
>* * *
>
>in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
>and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
>cautiously or incautiously.
>these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
>or another.
>
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>k...@springhaven.springhaven.org wrote:
>> lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >Esther1912 (aka Typhoid Mary) wrote:
>> >Whoever you are, go away.
>> as always you have the power to ignore her.
>I am ignoring her, as much as not reading what she is saying. When one
>is exposed to typhoid in a village, however, can one merely say I will
>ignore it and go on living here, day to day?
in this case i would say the disease you sense in you, and not her.
its your response that you lose control over.
>I really don't care much whether this person hangs here or not, but
>again, I feel a self-imposed obligation to express my misgivings about
>this person's presence here; and I would warn anyone reading this person
>to know that they are a pathological liar and consummate manipulator.
i feel, then, that i should mention that you are mistaken.
even?
>> i find her comments on topic.
>> i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
>> for a group of people who have this thing about
>> "the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
>> the way things are.
>you don't consider yourself part of the group?
yes and no as always.
words reach limits.
>my issue is not with
>you, peter, so will defer on responding to your personal observance.
maybe it should be.
>> esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
>> i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
>> she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
>HAHAHAHAHAHA This person is purposely irritating.
true, but not in the fashion she suspects.
>> i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
>> and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
>> things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
>Maybe if I inject a little of it into my system I can get the feel of
>typhus to see if I like it, right?
i shan't respond to the rest of the typhus thing.
your bias.
the analogy is streched thin.
>> it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
>> and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
>> solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
>> to leave.
>Baloney. This has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do
>with malignancy.
no. you cling to your perception of malignancy.
>I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
i do. and i am not sharing that information.
>Why do you step forward to defend this harpy when you've let
>others be broasted alive without a peep?
mostly because you are attacking the messanger and not
paying attention to the message.
>What do you know?
the world is whole.
which parts shall you shut out?
>> in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
>> and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
>Bring me its head on a platter and I'll run some tests. Fair enough?
go use a platter as a pillow.
>> cautiously or incautiously.
>> these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
>> or another.
>You're right. Seeing people that I CARE ABOUT getting screwed over,
>surviving it, then to see the one responsible breezing back in as if
>nothing happened and expecting those same people to act as if nothing
>had happened is my reason. It is a studied and contrived return and is
>done unquestionably for motives having nothing to do with this place.
you ask me what i know.
what is it that you know about people getting screwed over?
really. you hold a personal grudge and it clouds your judgment.
just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
about it.
>So easy for you to take the paternalistic role, peter. The
>dispassionate observer who will guide us through our problems, right?
nope.
attack me some more.
>i hear what you're saying, but frankly, this matter is outside of these
>questions, at least as far as i'm concerned. this persona is in a class
>by itself and is the exception to the rule. it is the closest thing to
>evil as i've ever seen. what is evil? i don't know what it is, but i
>know it when i see it, and it is.
>as to responding any further on the subject of this person, like the
>last time "it" arrived, i said my piece and then faded out. likewise,
>this is all i will be saying on the subject this time in the newsgroup.
the world is whole.
you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
questions".
JayBuzin
[...]
> Capra's opinions
from _The Tao of Physics_ (third ed, updated)
p. 20 "... God who stands above the world and directs it.
... characteristic of Western philosophy."
p 56 "...Newton ...God ... Newtonian view ...
the mechanistic view of nature is thus closely related
to rigorous determinism. ..."
p 87 "...Hindu mythology ..."
p 162 "...Greek philosopy ..."
p 244 "...Shiva's dance ..."
p 286 "...bootstrap philosophy constitutes
the final rejection of the mechanistic world view
in modern physics.
Newton's universe was constructed from a set of basic
entities with certain fundamental properties, which had
been created by God and thus the world cannot
be understood as an assemblage of entities which cannot
be analysed further. In the new world view, the universe
is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events.
None of the properties of any part of this web
is fundamental; they all follow from the properties
of the other parts,
and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations
determines the structure of the entire web."
Nope, sorry, no G-d
no mention of Tod.
{;-])))
JayBuzin
>EJ wrote:
[...]
>> G-d (which is why it is spelled G-d and not God by most Jews) is
>> exactly the same perception IMO (and many others) as the Tao
>> concept in China.
>Why is it that you are the only person to say so?
Many people have many opinions.
What is being said has its place.
IMO, it just is _not_ Tao Chia.
Very plain and very simple.
Tao Chiao, mebbe.
I believe alt.religion.taoism does exist.
Lugh might still be around.
>> So for me, I see "as TTC Chapter 9 goes ..."
>>
>> "To hold upright and fill it,
>> Is not as good as stopping.
>> When one pounds it out and gives it a point,
>> It won't be preserved very long."
Yet EJ pounds and attempts to give it a point,
thus it is not preserved very long.
>> The APT Newsgroup, IMO has tried to pound the point, that in
>> their opinion, Tao is not a god ... but in doing so the point is
>> never preseserved.
The shoe, alas, is on the wrong foot.
For a while no mention was made of Tod.
The topic arose. The equation was asserted.
The pounding has begun. Who brought this weight?
Tao is only said to be not-God,
when someone claims that Tao=God.
When no mention is made,
no non-point is unpreserved.
>>Although they make this case well and often -
>> What they do not hear those of us who disagree say (and thus
>> why the point comes to be debated over and over again) .. is
>> "we agree! that Tao is not a god. Hear what we are saying is
>> ...Tao is G-d - whatever G-d/Tao is or isn't! So this is why IMO,
>> the subject never rests, why "the point is never preserved."
Hear ye what is being said:
The name of the group is
alt.philosophy.taoism.
The name is not alt.tod
the name is not alt.the-great-mystery
the name is not alt.tao\yin.god\yang
the name is not alt.panENtheism.
>So your point is pointless.
As well it should be.
Personally, I enjoy all those views.
>> But then - there are none so blind ... as those that choose NOT to
>> see.
-indeed
>> Respectfully,
>> Esther
-imso
{:-])))
-J
JayBuzin
>lisa wrote:
[...]
>>I really don't care much whether this person hangs here or not, but
>>again, I feel a self-imposed obligation to express my misgivings about
>>this person's presence here; and I would warn anyone reading this person
>>to know that they are a pathological liar and consummate manipulator.
>
>i feel, then, that i should mention that you are mistaken.
I feel, then, that I should mention
that your opinion
is your opinion.
Shall we dig up some mud?
>even?
I find it odd.
>>I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
>
>i do. and i am not sharing that information.
And I won't share mine either.
Potent isles exist.
>you are attacking the messanger and not
>paying attention to the message.
What _is_ the intent?
>the world is whole.
>which parts shall you shut out?
Would you let a thief into your house?
>what is it that you know about people getting screwed over?
More than I care to say.
> you hold a personal grudge and it clouds your judgment.
One time, shame on them.
Two times, shame on me.
>just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
>about it.
good advice?
>attack me some more.
okay
>the world is whole.
>you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
>questions".
The topic is Tao Chia.
What is the intent of someone
who constantly, knowingly, and willfully,
injects off-topic matter
that is certain to cause commotion?
-in the grove-
{;-])))
kamerm
<199809130332...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> The topic is Tao Chia.
> What is the intent of someone
> who constantly, knowingly, and willfully,
> injects off-topic matter
> that is certain to cause commotion?
Commot-ion's everywhere
Cows and cowards flying
through th'air
In zen swamp too
a warrior woman's return
threatens a peace
being born
Shou-ting's no answer
what is? (is?)
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>peter wrote:
>>lisa wrote:
>>>I really don't care much whether this person hangs here or not, but
>>>again, I feel a self-imposed obligation to express my misgivings about
>>>this person's presence here; and I would warn anyone reading this person
>>>to know that they are a pathological liar and consummate manipulator.
>>i feel, then, that i should mention that you are mistaken.
>I feel, then, that I should mention
>that your opinion
>is your opinion.
>Shall we dig up some mud?
yes, thus shall that be the deciding factor about who shall or
shall not be allowed to speak?
>>even?
>I find it odd.
cute.
>>>I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
>>i do. and i am not sharing that information.
>And I won't share mine either.
>Potent isles exist.
>>you are attacking the messanger and not
>>paying attention to the message.
>What _is_ the intent?
the world is whole.
which parts shall you shut out?
>>the world is whole.
>>which parts shall you shut out?
>Would you let a thief into your house?
is alt.philosophy.taoism your house?
i have let a thief into my house before.
>>what is it that you know about people getting screwed over?
>More than I care to say.
ah...
then shh..
>> you hold a personal grudge and it clouds your judgment.
>One time, shame on them.
>Two times, shame on me.
nonono
you shut out the message with the messanger.
that is you perogative.
not to mention that perhaps it is off-topic to say that
because you don't like some that they don't deserve to post.
>>just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
>>about it.
>good advice?
just advice.
>>attack me some more.
>okay
cute.
>>the world is whole.
>>you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
>>questions".
>The topic is Tao Chia.
ah ha!
then what is tao chia.
you could be wrong you know.
the discussion about what tao chia is what is being talked about.
>What is the intent of someone
>who constantly, knowingly, and willfully,
>injects off-topic matter
>that is certain to cause commotion?
1)
what is the intent of someone
who constantly, knowingly, and willfully,
injects off-topic attacks
that is certain to cause commotion?
2)
esther's posts aren't off topic.
3)
have you stopped beating small animals?
* * *
if you don't want to explore the possiblity that the tao
and god are the same, you are not required to.
but consider that it is your dogma that tao is not god.
not everyone who is interested in tao believes that tao is not god.
you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>k...@springhaven.springhaven.org wrote:
>> yes and no as always.
>> words reach limits.
>why spend your energy trying to change the way things are?
for the same reason i drink tea.
>> >my issue is not with
>> >you, peter, so will defer on responding to your personal observance.
>> maybe it should be.
>why is that? are you this persona? or is someone you care
>about--someone you're protecting--this persona?
esther is a person.
not a persona.
>> >> esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
>> >> i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
>> >> she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
>> >HAHAHAHAHAHA This person is purposely irritating.
>> true, but not in the fashion she suspects.
>this is open for speculation, i suppose. neither of us can know for
>sure now, can we?
perhaps you can't.
then you don't talk to her.
>> >> it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
>> >> and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
>> >> solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
>> >> to leave.
>> >Baloney. This has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do
>> >with malignancy.
>> no. you cling to your perception of malignancy.
>as my lungs cling to air perhaps. no more, no less.
not as your lungs cling to air.
for that means something to you
and not to all.
>> >I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
>> i do. and i am not sharing that information.
>trust you, right? you know the *real* truth.
nope.
you don't need to trust me.
why should i trust you?
>> >Why do you step forward to defend this harpy when you've let
>> >others be broasted alive without a peep?
>> mostly because you are attacking the messanger and not
>> paying attention to the message.
>the message, in this case, is the messenger.
what is god?
>> >What do you know?
>> the world is whole.
>> which parts shall you shut out?
>indeed. i and my views are also part of this whole world. including my
>typhus analogy. don't mean to sound cutesy, but you asked for it.
keep in mind you are shutting things out.
your analogy is weak.
so i think.
>> >> in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
>> >> and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
>> >Bring me its head on a platter and I'll run some tests. Fair enough?
>> go use a platter as a pillow.
>oooh, are we getting near hissy level yet?
nope.
think about what i said.
>personal grudge? what might that be? old news. this has nothing to do
>with that. really.
really?
you complain that i don't say anything when other people get roasted.
>> just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
>> about it.
>> >So easy for you to take the paternalistic role, peter. The
>> >dispassionate observer who will guide us through our problems, right?
>> nope.
>> attack me some more.
>no attack intended there. you are the one taking the paternalistic
>role, not me.
no. you shine the light upon me.
>you've admitted you know something but won't share it.
>that's supposed to be the magic medicine which makes everythign all
>better?
nope.
nor do i intend to make it so.
i know stuff about who esther is. one of which is that
esther is esther and not madelynn. however, the other stuff
shouldn't matter if you were addressing the message.
is tao god?
>> >i hear what you're saying, but frankly, this matter is outside of these
>> >questions, at least as far as i'm concerned. this persona is in a class
>> >by itself and is the exception to the rule. it is the closest thing to
>> >evil as i've ever seen. what is evil? i don't know what it is, but i
>> >know it when i see it, and it is.
>> >as to responding any further on the subject of this person, like the
>> >last time "it" arrived, i said my piece and then faded out. likewise,
>> >this is all i will be saying on the subject this time in the newsgroup.
>> the world is whole.
>> you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
>> questions".
>there is only so many hours in a day, peter. as you mentioned above,
>why spend even this bit of typing on what i consider to be a moot
>point?
you started it.
esther's presense galls you greatly.
it galls you so much that should any other person even
suggest that god is tao, that you and several others
gang up on that person.
it clouds your judgment.
let it go.
>every letter in this post is energy food for that thing waiting
>in the wings. dammitall i've given it exactly what it wants.
wei-wu-wei.
do what you must do.
was it good luck for that man to lose his horse?
>happy now?
why should i be?
* * *
count to ten.
* * *
this is
all of it is
how you make taoism real in your life.
pay attention.
Moonshadao
>no mention of Tod.
>{;-])))
>
Tod is dead.
but madelynn obviously is not.
el...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>Madelynn wrote:
>>
>> Elg 1...@earthlink.net(also Madelynn) writes: >
I don't know who this Madelynn is although she sounds smart. For the
record, I'm William E Justin of Huntington Beach, California and I
just stopped in here to post my little Episode of Truth thesis and am
stuck here for the moment because unlike in the other groups where I
posted it, somebody made the mistake of commenting.
I'm now glad that people kept quiet in the western philo groups
because they are sooo dense in their speach that it would've taken
much more time just trying to understand them. WEJ
>>
>>
>>
el...@earthlink.net
>
>There is no truth. Tao as the undefineable is certainly not
>your Jewish god. That is simple fact, nothing true or false about it.
>
>
well, Tao might not be definable yet--as the process may not be
complete on the grand cosmic level, but I think there is a lot of
truth in saying that it is a cousin to old Jehova. Anyway, I think
I'm going to dust off a post from last year that I made in a few
places called, "What conciousness Did At Spring Break" he he he he
George Henry
she's back?? i suggest you take the mother ship back to whatever planet
you came from. OTOH the philosophy of the west could best be described
as bull-shitism.. ego projection.. or followism.
time to get a grip,
---george
George Henry
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:05:11 GMT, dragon...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >your Jewish god. That is simple fact, nothing true or false about it.
> >
> >
> complete on the grand cosmic level, but I think there is a lot of
> truth in saying that it is a cousin to old Jehova. Anyway, I think
> I'm going to dust off a post from last year that I made in a few
> places called, "What conciousness Did At Spring Break" he he he he
maybe you would better off describing Jehova-ism.. you are kinda naive
if you think you can describe either.
justa thought,
---soup nazi
who woulda ever thought that you could sell water in a bottle without
flavoring? mebbe compressed alpine air in tanks.. ?? some sea water in a
bottle.. saharan sand?? actually the three owners of daily soup the
place around the corner are multi-millionaires also.. makes one wonder.
JayBuzin
>J wrote:
>>plk wrote:
[...s]
> the deciding factor about who shall or
>shall not be allowed to speak?
Nobody can be not-allowed to speak.
>>What _is_ the intent?
>
>the world is whole.
An assumption\assertion. Is that the intent?
There is no world independent of all else.
To say the world is Tao, is to shortchange Tao.
Is the name of the group alt.world?
Is G-d a thing? Why foist a term such as God
and not use *The Goddess*? Is *The Goddess* Tao?
Is the Universe Tao?
What I'm driving at is the idea of a view, and views.
Each term connotes a view. Taoism is a view.
G-d is a view. The Goddess is a view.
Are all views the same? Some say yes, others know.
Even if all views look upon the same thing\non/thing,
that does not mean that alt.motorcycle=alt.pickuptruck.
>which parts shall you shut out?
It could be that One Reality exists.
It's possible that we all do share one planet
and that this globe exists.
Yet, if the name of the group was alt.riverandsea.cats
why equate something else to it?
Cats and dogs may go pause for paws
but why speak of dogs on dry land in such a group?
>>>the world is whole.
>>>which parts shall you shut out?
>
>>Would you let a thief into your house?
>
>is alt.philosophy.taoism your house?
nope
>i have let a thief into my house before.
Were you robbed?
Would you do it again?
Is your door always open?
Do you let mosquitos bite you?
Do you feed roaches?
>you shut out the message with the messanger.
>that is you perogative.
What was the message again? What's the bottom line?
As it is EJ's choice to respond (or not) to rick et al;
many threads can be ongoing.
>not to mention that perhaps it is off-topic to say that
>because you don't like some that they don't deserve to post.
Actually, I enjoy this. EJ continues to flavour a.p.t..
Everybody deserves to post and be responded to.
And I do like everybody so far as I know them.
EJ and Madelynn are\were excellent composers.
Word-smiths of a most-high order.
Brings the love right outta me, for real!
>>The topic is Tao Chia.
>
>ah ha!
>
>then what is tao chia.
>you could be wrong you know.
Wouldn't be the first\last time.
>the discussion about what tao chia is what is being talked about.
My take is that it's a metaphysical philosophy
which began somewhat with Yang Chu and took off
with Lao Tzu and was explicated by Chuang Tzu.
Lieh Tzu provides anecdotes. Chu-lin ch'i-hsien
continued it. Hsuan-hsueh was in on it. But nowhere
do I find an equation of G-d and Tao. Do you?
To say that Ti is Tao is not what Lao Tzu said.
But I could be wrong.
To attempt to change history or bend inertia
is a curious thingy.
>3)
>have you stopped beating small animals?
Usually I just squash or poison them
when they're invasive.
Ants are in season.
Is an ant an animal?
>if you don't want to explore the possiblity that the tao
>and god are the same, you are not required to.
I thought that's what we were doing, again.
I don't think they were the same in Tao Chia.
They might be the same in people's view.
But I don't think it's a Tao Chia view.
>but consider that it is your dogma that tao is not god.
Mebbe that's why Lao Tzu said, it appears
that Tao was before God.
>you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
As can others.
But we won't, will we?
-still looking for the jug-
{;-])))
ld...@pathcom.com
"kamerm" <kam...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> JayBuzin <jayb...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199809130332...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > who constantly, knowingly, and willfully,
> > injects off-topic matter
> > that is certain to cause commotion?
>
> Cows and cowards flying
> through th'air
> In zen swamp too
> a warrior woman's return
> threatens a peace
> being born
>
> Shou-ting's no answer
> what is? (is?)
One great escape is to have everybody who cares about having Taoist content
in a Taoist group just post some Taoist stuff in new threads. For example if
everybody picked out the one verse in the TTC, or lines from Chuang, or even
hsuen-hsueh or Shao-yung stuff, and quoted it with a brief explanation of why
it spoke to them particularly, we'd have a whole bunch of relevent,
interesting topics. Another idea is reposts of old gold from deja--NOT the
stuff proving the hydra lady is berzerk, but the positive stuff, like the
moon lake anthology.. And if we must have a thread on comparative
philosophies, let's open it up for Zenners and Sufis to clarify the
difference between the Western 'external god' (that evolves from family to
tribe to species) and the Eastern nondual insights. The I-ching suggests:
"The best way to fight evil is to make energetic progress in the good." -l
p.s. Nothing happens much in Canada during the summer. So how can they sell
newspapers? Well one story made the news was the lady who got hit by a flying
pig. She had three pigs got loose near the highway and she rounded up two
when a car smashed the third one tossing it thirty yards in the air and it
came down and broke her leg. Now that's reality for you. Bacon anyone?
>
> > -in the grove-
> > {;-])))
> >
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
lisa
I bow to your wisdom in this matter, lawrence.
========================================
Chuang Tzu 27.6
Penumbra inquired of Shadow, saying, "A moment ago you were looking
downward, but now you are looking upward; a moment ago you had your hair
tied up, but now it is disheveled; a moment ago you were sitting down,
but now you're standing up; a moment ago you were walking, but now
you've stopped. Why is this?"
Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so trivial? I
have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells or snake
sloughs but am not. I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on? How much
more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend! When
they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
powerful, why ask about them either?"
from, _Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang
Tzu_, by Victor H Mair
=======================
Alright, this passage is saying something important, but I can only
follow it to a certain point. Interested in hearing what others have to
say about this passage!
regards,
lisa
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>peter wrote:
>>J wrote:
>>>plk wrote:
>[...s]
>> the deciding factor about who shall or
>>shall not be allowed to speak?
>Nobody can be not-allowed to speak.
in practice they can be post-cancelled,
or accused of fantastic sins,
or yelled down.
>>>What _is_ the intent?
>>the world is whole.
>An assumption\assertion. Is that the intent?
>There is no world independent of all else.
>To say the world is Tao, is to shortchange Tao.
>Is the name of the group alt.world?
>Is G-d a thing? Why foist a term such as God
>and not use *The Goddess*? Is *The Goddess* Tao?
>Is the Universe Tao?
if it is a question, then it is worth exploring.
however, i think in your case it is merely a
rhetorical question.
people are working things out. they come with a view
or a question, and they are yelled at for not agreeing
with YOUR view (dogma). or having a dogma different
from yours.
but the questions themselves are worth exploring for
some. maybe from your viewpoint, if only to learn the
are wrong.
>What I'm driving at is the idea of a view, and views.
>Each term connotes a view. Taoism is a view.
>G-d is a view. The Goddess is a view.
>Are all views the same? Some say yes, others know.
>Even if all views look upon the same thing\non/thing,
>that does not mean that alt.motorcycle=alt.pickuptruck.
but is alt.philosophy.taoism similar to alt.motorcycle
or similar to alt.mechanic?
>It could be that One Reality exists.
>It's possible that we all do share one planet
>and that this globe exists.
>Yet, if the name of the group was alt.riverandsea.cats
>why equate something else to it?
>Cats and dogs may go pause for paws
>but why speak of dogs on dry land in such a group?
you overstrech your analogy.
if you could show something about the tao using
a river, or sea, or cats, or dogs, then i would
say that those posts are topical.
since you can make comments related to tao and
god, then i would say those posts are topical.
>>you shut out the message with the messanger.
>>that is you perogative.
>What was the message again? What's the bottom line?
>As it is EJ's choice to respond (or not) to rick et al;
>many threads can be ongoing.
that you can ignore the posts that you aren't interested in.
you aren't the only one who gets to choose what is or isn't
about taoism.
there are several people who go to great lengths to shut god
(the idea) out. they justify it by asserting dogmatically
that god has no relevance in a philosophical. this being
a matter of dogma, the side that can yell louder usually
wins the argument. rather than agreeing to disagree several
people will go to great lengths to preclude the discussion
at all costs regardless of what other people in the group may want.
some people do find value in talking about god and tao,
but some other people's dislike for god robs them of that
opportunity. next you might tell me they should form their
own newsgroup; well they could, but then the casteneda
fans maybe should take their topics to other newsgroups,
and so on. but i think the casteneda posts are topical also.
>>>The topic is Tao Chia.
>>ah ha!
>>then what is tao chia.
>>you could be wrong you know.
>Wouldn't be the first\last time.
tao chia doesn't live in a vaccum.
how does it interact with the world?
as alt.philosophy.taoism manifests it, in regards to god,
it creates strife and anguish. or it tries to isolate itself
from the world.
i can understand the desire to have a refuge from things some
people dislike, but alt.philosophy.taosim isn't for some,
it is for all.
>>the discussion about what tao chia is what is being talked about.
>My take is that it's a metaphysical philosophy
>which began somewhat with Yang Chu and took off
>with Lao Tzu and was explicated by Chuang Tzu.
>Lieh Tzu provides anecdotes. Chu-lin ch'i-hsien
>continued it. Hsuan-hsueh was in on it.
>But nowhere do I find an equation of G-d and Tao. Do you?
i find it all the time.
just look around.
you have rewritten and explored tao chia in modern context.
other people are allowed to rewrite or explore tao chia in a
modern context and come up with their own conclusions.
tao chia as you know it is not the same as tao chia is understood
by everyone at all times.
>To say that Ti is Tao is not what Lao Tzu said.
>But I could be wrong.
>To attempt to change history or bend inertia
>is a curious thingy.
what you don't see is how you have choosen those bits of history
and bent the inertia.
>>if you don't want to explore the possiblity that the tao
>>and god are the same, you are not required to.
>I thought that's what we were doing, again.
>I don't think they were the same in Tao Chia.
>They might be the same in people's view.
>But I don't think it's a Tao Chia view.
"tao chia" is not the ultimate tao chia.
when _you_ say "tao chia" you mean the tao chia you understand.
are you willing to say that your understanding of tao chia
is the only one allowed?
>>but consider that it is your dogma that tao is not god.
>Mebbe that's why Lao Tzu said, it appears
>that Tao was before God.
you have a narrow view of what god is (to some).
>>you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
>As can others.
>But we won't, will we?
not really
* * *
it is always, for me, about:
"what are you doing?"
"where do you live?"
this is how i see what is now.
mirror, mirror.
Esther1912
>Tod is dead.
> but madelynn obviously is not.
Very clever, Rick (I presume or whoever ...). Ok so you got into the old Gr8Tao
Master account- congratulations! - you are a master hacker and programer. (I
think we all knew that anyway but I guess you just wanted to really impress
people!)
Posted the info on clearing this virus - You won't be able to get into the
account again - (for a while I suppose).
Notice I did not delete account or change name or anything else.
Sorry Rick (or whoever) - like I said before and I'll say again and again - I
can't bring Madelynn back to life, She died January 3, 1998. Nothing will
change this. Not threats, not hacking, not yang style stuff, not all the noise
you keep trying to produce.
And now that you are in the account - you know that for certain! So maybe it
is time - to let go!
Respectfully,
Esther
Esther1912
>plk's more-complete post was:
Thanx Jay. My server seems to have viruses and intermittens. Hope its hands are
keeping warm <G>
Thanks for repeating Peter's post - I had "lost " it - perhaps in one of those
"intermittens". Ah the joys of technology!
Respectfully,
Esther
ld...@pathcom.com
lk...@gte.net wrote:
(...:)
> Chuang Tzu 27.6
>
> Penumbra inquired of Shadow, saying, "A moment ago you were looking
> downward, but now you are looking upward; a moment ago you had your hair
> tied up, but now it is disheveled; a moment ago you were sitting down,
> but now you're standing up; a moment ago you were walking, but now
> you've stopped. Why is this?"
> Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so trivial? I
> have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells or snake
> sloughs but am not. I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
> when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on? How much
> more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend! When
> they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
> are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
> powerful, why ask about them either?"
>
> from, _Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang
> Tzu_, by Victor H Mair
>
> =======================
>
> Alright, this passage is saying something important, but I can only
> follow it to a certain point. Interested in hearing what others have to
> say about this passage!
>
> regards,
> lisa
>
A tough one, I had to look up penumbra in Webster. Evidentally it is the
partly lighted part surrounding a complete shadow, for example in a solar
eclipse the total eclipse is where the moon completely blocks the sun making
a full shadow on the earth, called the umbra. The penumbra is the area where
only a bite is taken from the moon making a partial eclipse. So a penumbra
can be the halo-like lit part around a shadow. I seem to remember in old
China people celebrated (?) eclipses by taking to the streets to bang on
pots and pans, thereby chasing off the 'heavenly dog' that was eating the
moon.
digging away,
-lawrence
Softshadow
>is time - to let go!
>
>
i would only echo this to you ..
let go esther.
you are not a welcome person here. you have brought only chaos and disharmony.
go where your religious affiliations are accepted.
christine
Esther1912
>i would only echo this to you ..
>let go esther.
>you are not a welcome person here. you have brought only chaos and
>disharmony.
>go where your religious affiliations are accepted.
My threads are on topic. The dis harmony and chaos you refer to has never come
from me or my posts.
Always interesting to me that you choose not to see where such disharmony and
chaos actually does originate from. Z might be able to help you with this!
Please remember, you, as others, always have the choice not to read my posts.
Tzaddik
>
> lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
> >k...@springhaven.springhaven.org wrote:
> >> yes and no as always.
> >> words reach limits.
> >why spend your energy trying to change the way things are?
>
> for the same reason i drink tea.
Because it makes you pee, and you like that sensation?
>
> >> >my issue is not with
> >> >you, peter, so will defer on responding to your personal observance.
> >> maybe it should be.
> >why is that? are you this persona? or is someone you care
> >about--someone you're protecting--this persona?
>
> esther is a person.
> not a persona.
>
Have you met this person?
If so describe her.
> >> >> esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
> >> >> i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
> >> >> she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
> >> >HAHAHAHAHAHA This person is purposely irritating.
> >> true, but not in the fashion she suspects.
> >this is open for speculation, i suppose. neither of us can know for
> >sure now, can we?
>
> perhaps you can't.
> then you don't talk to her.
Only an idiot would talk to her.
>
> >> >> it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
> >> >> and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
> >> >> solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
> >> >> to leave.
> >> >Baloney. This has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do
> >> >with malignancy.
> >> no. you cling to your perception of malignancy.
> >as my lungs cling to air perhaps. no more, no less.
>
> not as your lungs cling to air.
> for that means something to you
> and not to all.
It means that as she lives and breaths she is sure of her conviction.
And that she bases on intuition. It is a personal thing which
is unchanged by perception. Perception can be altered, but intuition
is unchangeable. It provides her with a solid means of establishing
a shield to that which she feels is inherently adverse to her nature.
As it has been debated and taken in concensus, most here feel that
this intuitive consciousness is the root their understanding
of the world so it seems she may be saying something that means
something to all, since all sense the world with intuition.
>
> >> >I would almost think you know something we don't, peter.
> >> i do. and i am not sharing that information.
> >trust you, right? you know the *real* truth.
>
> nope.
> you don't need to trust me.
> why should i trust you?
>
> >> >Why do you step forward to defend this harpy when you've let
> >> >others be broasted alive without a peep?
> >> mostly because you are attacking the messanger and not
> >> paying attention to the message.
> >the message, in this case, is the messenger.
>
> what is god?
What is that noodle hanging between your legs.
>
> >> >What do you know?
> >> the world is whole.
> >> which parts shall you shut out?
> >indeed. i and my views are also part of this whole world. including my
> >typhus analogy. don't mean to sound cutesy, but you asked for it.
>
> keep in mind you are shutting things out.
rightfully so. Just as Zhou shut his door on the witless
inanities that knocked on it.
>
> your analogy is weak.
> so i think.
>
> >> >> in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
> >> >> and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
> >> >Bring me its head on a platter and I'll run some tests. Fair enough?
> >> go use a platter as a pillow.
> >oooh, are we getting near hissy level yet?
>
> nope.
> think about what i said.
>
> >personal grudge? what might that be? old news. this has nothing to do
> >with that. really.
>
> really?
>
> you complain that i don't say anything when other people get roasted.
I would expect no less from Tyagi's Advocate.
few are worthy of your praise. Only those who fit his standard.
>
> >> just pay attention to that. you don't need to do anything
> >> about it.
> >> >So easy for you to take the paternalistic role, peter. The
> >> >dispassionate observer who will guide us through our problems, right?
> >> nope.
> >> attack me some more.
> >no attack intended there. you are the one taking the paternalistic
> >role, not me.
>
> no. you shine the light upon me.
You shine the light on yourself by taking sides.
Your support of the entity places you on her stage.
>
> >you've admitted you know something but won't share it.
> >that's supposed to be the magic medicine which makes everythign all
> >better?
>
> nope.
> nor do i intend to make it so.
>
> i know stuff about who esther is. one of which is that
> esther is esther and not madelynn. however, the other stuff
> shouldn't matter if you were addressing the message.
have you ever met either one?
>
> is tao god?
no
is peter confused?
>
> >> >i hear what you're saying, but frankly, this matter is outside of these
> >> >questions, at least as far as i'm concerned. this persona is in a class
> >> >by itself and is the exception to the rule. it is the closest thing to
> >> >evil as i've ever seen. what is evil? i don't know what it is, but i
> >> >know it when i see it, and it is.
> >> >as to responding any further on the subject of this person, like the
> >> >last time "it" arrived, i said my piece and then faded out. likewise,
> >> >this is all i will be saying on the subject this time in the newsgroup.
> >> the world is whole.
> >> you don't hear if you can say, "this matter is outside of these
> >> questions".
> >there is only so many hours in a day, peter. as you mentioned above,
> >why spend even this bit of typing on what i consider to be a moot
> >point?
>
> you started it.
> esther's presense galls you greatly.
> it galls you so much that should any other person even
> suggest that god is tao, that you and several others
> gang up on that person.
> it clouds your judgment.
> let it go.
>
This monica lewinsky / linda trip relation you have with
madelynn is great fun to watch, but it is as delusional
as she is.
> >every letter in this post is energy food for that thing waiting
> >in the wings. dammitall i've given it exactly what it wants.
>
> wei-wu-wei.
> do what you must do.
Riddle riddle marie
I see somthing you don't see
and the color of it is: Ominous.
look over your shoulder peter at the
one who pulls your strings.
>
> was it good luck for that man to lose his horse?
How about those cum stains? no luck in that.
>
> >happy now?
>
> why should i be?
>
> * * *
>
> count to ten.
>
> * * *
>
> this is
> all of it is
> how you make taoism real in your life.
>
> pay attention.
Make it real for us. describe what esther looks like as apposed
to what madelynn looks like. better yet, you know how to post
binaries, send us a picture of both. And then try to make us believe
it is really them and not just a photography supplied to your
blind faith, by a imposter. get a life peter, she is not worth
pimping. We don't want to buy any of what she has for sell.
Tzaddik
>
> Please remember, you, as others, always have the choice not to read my posts.
>
>
We can't have you misleading newbies during their investigation
of taoism. That alone is reason for even the most yin of persons
to speak out against you. Your ideology is misreprsentive of tao
and taoism. You are as she said, unwelcome here. There are those
of us that will continue to inform others of that as long as you
persist in corruption of the newsgroup.
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>you are not a welcome person here.
i welcome esther to alt.philosophy.taoism.
of course this doesn't count for anything.
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>My threads are on topic. The dis harmony and chaos you refer to
>has never come from me or my posts.
i takes two to tango esther.
you have a particularly abrasive manner.
>Always interesting to me that you choose not to see where such
>disharmony and chaos actually does originate from. Z might be
>able to help you with this!
two eyes.
one for this.
one for that.
>Please remember, you, as others,
>always have the choice not to read my posts.
you do, too.
Tzaddik
>
>
> if you don't want to explore the possiblity that the tao
> and god are the same, you are not required to.
>
> but consider that it is your dogma that tao is not god.
>
> not everyone who is interested in tao believes that tao is not god.
>
> you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Or you can point out that it is not a matter of belief.
Historical fact states it is not god.
Belief by those who are not chinese and those who are not taoist
consitutes the bulk of those who believe it is.
Because ignoring idiots choose to belief tao is god,
it doesn't make it so.
Tzaddik
>
> Softshadow <softs...@aol.com> wrote:
> >you are not a welcome person here.
>
> i welcome esther to alt.philosophy.taoism.
> of course this doesn't count for anything.
>
Of course not.
kam...@my-dejanews.com
Ken drank from it last
RE: Missing 09/04/98
although you gestured
at it en-passant
and Chrisinte's refilled it
with a nice Chardonnay
Chiao! (oops, Chia!)
DoctorNine
SS
> >i would only echo this to you ..
> >let go esther.
> >you are not a welcome person here. you have brought only chaos and
> >disharmony. go where your religious affiliations are accepted.
Es
> My threads are on topic. The dis harmony and chaos you refer to has
> never come from me or my posts.
I guess when you stir up an ant hill with a stick, it's the ants who are
the cause of the chaos, huh?
I wonder how you would take it if I came to your synegogue and told
everybody there that they didn't know what Judaism was; that they
would have to believe in my nice little New Age construct, or they
would perish in Gehenna? How long would they be polite before
they got tired of it and threw me out?
You be selling stale crackers, and we ain't gonna parrot you no way...
Dig?
D9
>
> Always interesting to me that you choose not to see where such disharmony and
> chaos actually does originate from. Z might be able to help you with this!
>
> Please remember, you, as others, always have the choice not to read my posts.
>
Esther1912
>i takes two to tango esther.
>you have a particularly abrasive manner.<
Hmmmm. Remember my post sometime back about the "responsibilties of the writer
and the reader". It takes two is right. The writer or the speaker is not
responsible for the reaction or the emotion of the reader or the listener.
People hear what they want to hear, its part of the "mystery" in that law of
originality.
>>Please remember, you, as others,
>>always have the choice not to read my posts.
>
>you do, too.
I never forget that either.
Be well.
Esther
Tzaddik
>
> .
>
> People hear what they want to hear
And they don't want to hear anything you have to say.
Esther1912
>I guess when you stir up an ant hill with a stick, it's the ants who are
>the cause of the chaos, huh?
Um well .... its the ants that are running around - right? I think they do
that to protect themselves.
In the case of the ants, this is thier nature and how they participate in life.
It is also the nature of a human being to trip over the ant hill or in other
cases, stir it up to observe and study the ants.
In the end, it matters little - right? The ants rebuild and the human being
has gained knowledge, even if that knowledge is pain.
Madelynn used to say, "Everything furthers ..." remember?
>I wonder how you would take it if I came to your synegogue and told
>everybody there that they didn't know what Judaism was; that they
>would have to believe in my nice little New Age construct, or they
>would perish in Gehenna? How long would they be polite before
>they got tired of it and threw me out?
>
>You be selling stale crackers, and we ain't gonna parrot you no way...
Hmmmm.... for one thing I didn't come here and say you all didn't know what
Taoism is or isn't (no one seems to be able to define it here anyway).
I came and said your perception of Tao as stated here on this newsgroup and in
many Taoist writings, is similar (if not too close to call) with western
perceptions of G-d (not a god).
Further, I think in a Jewish setting your comparison of Tao and G-d would be
welcomed, discussed with much fever and enthusiasm and then left to each person
to determine how they felt about the discussion. So no, I wouldn't be out
selling crackers, because there would be no parrots to feed.
Respectfully,
Esther
Tzaddik
>
>
> Madelynn used to say, "Everything furthers ..." remember?
>
I think everyone KNOWS that she still does.
.
>
> I came and said your perception of Tao as stated here on this newsgroup and in
> many Taoist writings, is similar (if not too close to call) with western
> perceptions of G-d (not a god).
Nobody cares. That is a comparison that no one cares about.
It has no relevance to what people came to this group to discuss.
Only an idiot would insist that it does.
>
> Further, I think in a Jewish setting your comparison of Tao and G-d would be
> welcomed, discussed with much fever and enthusiasm and then left to each person
> to determine how they felt about the discussion.
So take it to a Jewish setting, say soc.jewish.culture again and lets
see how welcome it is. You are full of shit madelynn.
No one in this group cares to discuss a comparison of taoism and
judaism, except peter and your other fake personas which you use to
pretend that you have support.
dez
within Mozilla." For newbies, "Mozilla" is our resident mutant frog, a
relative of Godzilla... what was that Blue Oyster Cult song, "History shows
again and again how nature points out the folly of man..."
> Fuck you madelynn
> Fuck you madelynn
> Eat Shit and Die madelynn.
My server has been down for several days.
I'm glad to see that I haven't missed anything... (history repeating
itself...)
regards,
dez
JayBuzin
>lawrence wrote:
>(...:)
>> Chuang Tzu 27.6
>>
>> Penumbra inquired of Shadow, saying, "A moment ago you were looking
>> downward, but now you are looking upward; a moment ago you had your hair
>> tied up, but now it is disheveled; a moment ago you were sitting down,
>> but now you're standing up; a moment ago you were walking, but now
>> you've stopped. Why is this?"
>> Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so trivial? I
>> have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells or snake
>> sloughs but am not. I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
>> when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on? How much
>> more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend! When
>> they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
>> are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
>> powerful, why ask about them either?"
>>
>> from, _Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang
>> Tzu_, by Victor H Mair
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> Alright, this passage is saying something important, but I can only
>> follow it to a certain point. Interested in hearing what others have to
>> say about this passage!
>>
>A tough one, I had to look up penumbra in Webster. Evidentally it is the
>partly lighted part surrounding a complete shadow, for example in a solar
>eclipse the total eclipse is where the moon completely blocks the sun making
>a full shadow on the earth, called the umbra. The penumbra is the area where
>only a bite is taken from the moon making a partial eclipse. So a penumbra
>can be the halo-like lit part around a shadow. I seem to remember in old
>China people celebrated (?) eclipses by taking to the streets to bang on
>pots and pans, thereby chasing off the 'heavenly dog' that was eating the
>moon.
So shadowy counterpart asks its more real buddy ...
Okay, the counterpart would appear to be ignorant
while the more-real (umbra) appears to be wise.
>> How much
>> more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend!
We swim with our eyes
we sea with out minds.
Th'air is nothing upon which to hang
yet we think of ourselves as having substance.
>> Since they are so
>> powerful, why ask about them either?"
My take is that Chuang-tzu and Lao-tzu
realize the limits of intellect-ions.
>digging away,
I can dig it.
Why ask about things
of which there is no finding out?
Sharpening a knife beyond sharp
only consumes the edge.
The same situation arises in CT 2.
Palmer translates: "Does this something else itself
not have to rely upon yet another something?
Do I have to depend upon the scales of a snake
or the wings of a cicada? How can I tell how things are?
How can I tell how things are not?
-then
Chuang-tzu dreamt
that he was a butterfly-
"We call this the transformation of things."
lisa
> (...:)
> > Chuang Tzu 27.6
> >
> > Penumbra inquired of Shadow, saying, "A moment ago you were looking
> > downward, but now you are looking upward; a moment ago you had your hair
> > tied up, but now it is disheveled; a moment ago you were sitting down,
> > but now you're standing up; a moment ago you were walking, but now
> > you've stopped. Why is this?"
> > Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so trivial? I
> > have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells or snake
> > sloughs but am not. I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
> > when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on? How much
> > more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend! When
> > they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
> > are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
> > powerful, why ask about them either?"
> >
> > from, _Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang
> > Tzu_, by Victor H Mair
> >
lawrence:
> A tough one, I had to look up penumbra in Webster. Evidentally it is the
> partly lighted part surrounding a complete shadow, for example in a solar
> eclipse the total eclipse is where the moon completely blocks the sun making
> a full shadow on the earth, called the umbra. The penumbra is the area where
> only a bite is taken from the moon making a partial eclipse. So a penumbra
> can be the halo-like lit part around a shadow.
Thanks for the foundation. Much better definition than what I found in
my dictionary!
Alright, going to try to break it down, bit by bit, and looking for
collaboration along the way.
When Penumbra asked Shadow what it was doing:
> > Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so trivial? I
> > have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells or snake
> > sloughs but am not.
What this part says is that it appears Shadow is merely a hapless puppet
which merely reacts to its surroundings through the laws of physics and
nature--but it isn't. Penumbra, which also appears to follow such laws,
is asking the question.
> >I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
> > when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on?
Shadow goes on to say that yes, it does follow the laws of physics and
nature, but then asks itself (and Penumbra) whether these things happen
only because of immutable laws--or is there an unnamed ingredient also
at work.
>How much
> > more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend!
Is there a way of things beyond the way of things?
Looking in _A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy_, by Wing-Tsit Chan, in
the section on Chi-Tsang, he mentions the mention of Shadow in CT 2 (hi
Jay!):
"The shadow exists because of the body, and the body exists because of
the Creator. But the Creator originated from nowhere. If the root
exists of itself, it means that the branches are not caused by anything
else. Therefore there are no causes but there are effects.
>When
> > they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
> > are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
> > powerful, why ask about them either?"
This last part has me mystified! Trying to break on through on it but
so far no luck. HELP! Is the lightbulb going off for anyone on this??
regards,
lisa
JayBuzin
>she's back??
I thought I saw a gr8 post!
-could be a delusion tho
{;-])))
JayBuzin
>JayBuzin <jayb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>peter wrote:
>>>J wrote:
>>>>plk wrote:
>>[...s]
>>> the deciding factor about who shall or
>>>shall not be allowed to speak?
>>Nobody can be not-allowed to speak.
>
>in practice they can be post-cancelled,
>or accused of fantastic sins,
>or yelled down.
Okay, so they _can_.
Imo, they shall knot.
>>>>What _is_ the intent?
>>>the world is whole.
>>An assumption\assertion. Is that the intent?
>>There is no world independent of all else.
>>To say the world is Tao, is to shortchange Tao.
>>Is the name of the group alt.world?
>>Is G-d a thing? Why foist a term such as God
>>and not use *The Goddess*? Is *The Goddess* Tao?
>>Is the Universe Tao?
>
>if it is a question, then it is worth exploring.
>however, i think in your case it is merely a
>rhetorical question.
Let's assume that it's not rhetorical.
My posit-ion is that any such term places a limit on Tao.
The Tao that can be spoken
or attributed by any such term
such as Universe, Goddess, God, or G-d
is not the Eternal Tao.
When folks say: oh, but when I say this, I mean that;
why then do they do such a thing? Why not just say Tao?
Apparently there is something beneath te surface?
>people are working things out. they come with a view
>or a question, and they are yelled at for not agreeing
>with YOUR view (dogma). or having a dogma different
>from yours.
My view is simply that Tao Chia, as a school of thought,
appears to have ended about 1500 years ago.
We discuss what was; what they thought.
The topic is the love of their wisdom for something;
something they couldn't quite put their finger on;
something that wasn't a Creator; not G-d; not Ti.
That was their wisdom, imo. That was Tao Chia.
>but the questions themselves are worth exploring for
>some. maybe from your viewpoint, if only to learn the
>are wrong.
I'm open to debating it.
It's been beaten to death several times.
The point is that EJ knows this.
She knew what would happen.
She knows what will happen.
If you and I and she wish to continue, we can (shall).
If she kill-files everybody except you and her,
then that's okay too!
But she won't, eh?
If she continues to post, she will also read the others.
She'll continue to lament and play victim.
One time, shame on others. Two times, shame on her.
>>What I'm driving at is the idea of a view, and views.
>>Each term connotes a view. Taoism is a view.
>>G-d is a view. The Goddess is a view.
>>Are all views the same? Some say yes, others know.
>>Even if all views look upon the same thing\non/thing,
>>that does not mean that alt.motorcycle=alt.pickuptruck.
>
>but is alt.philosophy.taoism similar to alt.motorcycle
>or similar to alt.mechanic?
In so far as they are all newsgroups, yes.
There is a tao of bikes and a Way to wrench them.
But to say Tao=Harley is rather absurd, eh?
... hmm, then again ...
>>It could be that One Reality exists.
>>It's possible that we all do share one planet
>>and that this globe exists.
>>Yet, if the name of the group was alt.riverandsea.cats
>>why equate something else to it?
>>Cats and dogs may go pause for paws
>>but why speak of dogs on dry land in such a group?
>
>you overstrech your analogy.
I stretch a point to make a point.
>if you could show something about the tao using
>a river, or sea, or cats, or dogs, then i would
>say that those posts are topical.
Tao does not use God.
But God may use Tao.
If we speak about the Tao of G-d or the Tao of Jesus
that is one thing. If we say Tao=G-d or Tao=Jesus,
that is another thingy.
>since you can make comments related to tao and
>god, then i would say those posts are topical.
Having a relationship vs denoting or connoting identity
are rather different I would say.
>>>you shut out the message with the messanger.
>>>that is you perogative.
>>What was the message again? What's the bottom line?
>>As it is EJ's choice to respond (or not) to rick et al;
>>many threads can be ongoing.
>
>that you can ignore the posts that you aren't interested in.
>you aren't the only one who gets to choose what is or isn't
>about taoism.
>
>there are several people who go to great lengths to shut god
>(the idea) out. they justify it by asserting dogmatically
>that god has no relevance in a philosophical. this being
>a matter of dogma, the side that can yell louder usually
>wins the argument. rather than agreeing to disagree several
>people will go to great lengths to preclude the discussion
>at all costs regardless of what other people in the group may want.
>
>some people do find value in talking about god and tao,
>but some other people's dislike for god robs them of that
>opportunity. next you might tell me they should form their
>own newsgroup;
The thought did cross my mind.
> well they could,
Then why don't they?
> but then the casteneda
>fans maybe should take their topics to other newsgroups,
And if they got as much flack as the Christian fundys
or as the ENlightened Buddhists or as others do
I imagine they would. You mean there isn't one?
>and so on. but i think the casteneda posts are topical also.
Cuz yer that kinda guy.
>>>>The topic is Tao Chia.
>>>ah ha!
>>>then what is tao chia.
>>>you could be wrong you know.
>>Wouldn't be the first\last time.
>
>tao chia doesn't live in a vaccum.
>how does it interact with the world?
In quite a different fashion than the G-d folks do, imso.
>as alt.philosophy.taoism manifests it, in regards to god,
>it creates strife and anguish. or it tries to isolate itself
>from the world.
A poor excuse for Taoism, eh?
>i can understand the desire to have a refuge from things some
>people dislike, but alt.philosophy.taosim isn't for some,
>it is for all.
Well, flames are included. Caveat emptor.
Tis a pack-aged deal.
>>>the discussion about what tao chia is what is being talked about.
>>My take is that it's a metaphysical philosophy
>>which began somewhat with Yang Chu and took off
>>with Lao Tzu and was explicated by Chuang Tzu.
>>Lieh Tzu provides anecdotes. Chu-lin ch'i-hsien
>>continued it. Hsuan-hsueh was in on it.
>
>>But nowhere do I find an equation of G-d and Tao. Do you?
>
>i find it all the time.
>just look around.
Where in the CT or the TTC or the LT or in other lit
do you find such references?
>you have rewritten and explored tao chia in modern context.
>other people are allowed to rewrite or explore tao chia in a
> modern context and come up with their own conclusions.
I hear what you're saying.
>tao chia as you know it is not the same as tao chia is understood
> by everyone at all times.
True.
Thus to say that Lao-tzu or Chuang-tzu et al
believed that Tao=G-d is rather absurd.
EJ and others do suggest it is _their_ opin-ions.
Others suggest, with flames, that they disagree.
Everybody has at least one opinion.
At least, I'll assert t'hat.
>>To say that Ti is Tao is not what Lao Tzu said.
>>But I could be wrong.
>>To attempt to change history or bend inertia
>>is a curious thingy.
>
>what you don't see is how you have choosen those bits of history
> and bent the inertia.
Inertia had it that there was no Creator in Tao Chia.
When did the spin spring sproing the other Way?
Did I miss something in the readings?
Can you name a few authors?
>>>if you don't want to explore the possiblity that the tao
>>>and god are the same, you are not required to.
>>I thought that's what we were doing, again.
>>I don't think they were the same in Tao Chia.
>>They might be the same in people's view.
>>But I don't think it's a Tao Chia view.
>
>"tao chia" is not the ultimate tao chia.
So you think there's an ultimate tao chia?
>when _you_ say "tao chia" you mean the tao chia you understand.
When I say Tao Chia, I mean a philosophy
that is delineated in the texts of the TTC, the CT
and several others.
Are you suggesting that the Torah is Tao Chia?
I can sea how the two are One.
Can you perceive how they are patently not identical?
Shall we say that the TTC is actually the books of Moses
except written in a different time by different people?
And you say I stretch things?
>are you willing to say that your understanding of tao chia
>is the only one allowed?
Not at all.
I'm just wondering what, aside from the TTC, CT, LT,
neo-Taoism, and other writings; qualify
as being Tao Chia?
I don't think it's all that hard to pin down.
>>>but consider that it is your dogma that tao is not god.
>>Mebbe that's why Lao Tzu said, it appears
>>that Tao was before God.
>
>you have a narrow view of what god is (to some).
I hear what is being said.
Actually I can agree to it.
We've been thru it.
There are similarities and differences
between Tao and G-d.
Would you say they are identical?
>>>you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
>>As can others.
>>But we won't, will we?
>
>not really
>
>* * *
>
>it is always, for me, about:
>
>"what are you doing?"
>"where do you live?"
>
>this is how i see what is now.
>mirror, mirror.
{:-])))
JayBuzin
[...]
>Shadow goes on to say that yes, it does follow the laws of physics and
>nature, but then asks itself (and Penumbra) whether these things happen
>only because of immutable laws--or is there an unnamed ingredient also
>at work.
>>How much
>> > more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to depend!
>
>Is there a way of things beyond the way of things?
How high is a mouse when it spins?
We know what the speed of light is
but how fast is the speed of dark?
> (hi Jay!):
Hi li!
Fung Yu-lan translates CT 2:
'How can I tell why I am so, or why I am not otherwise.'
This shows that everything is spontaneously what it is.
One needs only to follow one's nature and not to ask
why one is so and not otherwise. --Tr.
'Once upon a time, Chuang Chou dreamed ...'
This shows that, although in ordinary appearances
there are differences between things, in delusions
or in dreams one thing can also be another.
"The transformation of things" proves that the
differences among things are not absolute. --Tr
> Therefore there are no causes but there are effects.
>>When
>> > they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them. When they
>> > are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they are so
>> > powerful, why ask about them either?"
>
>This last part has me mystified! Trying to break on through on it but
>so far no luck. HELP! Is the lightbulb going off for anyone on this??
... - - - ... - - - ... - - - ...
What is the meaning of a waterfall?
In the previous paragraph(s) of CT 2: "Suppose that you
argue with me. ... Shall we wait for still another?
... Let us take our joy in the realm of the infinite
and remain there."
-at the hub
{:-])))
Ken
kam...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6tjbrs$udj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <199809131224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> jayb...@aol.com (JayBuzin) wrote:
>> -still looking for the jug-
>> {;-])))
>
>Ken drank from it last
>RE: Missing 09/04/98
>although you gestured
>at it en-passant
>and Chrisinte's refilled it
>with a nice Chardonnay
Yes. Blame the guy 12000 mile away!!
lawrence day
CT:
" Penumbra inquired of Shadow, saying, "A moment ago you were
looking
> > downward, but now you are looking upward; a moment ago you had
your hair
> > tied up, but now it is disheveled; a moment ago you were
sitting down,
> > but now you're standing up; a moment ago you were walking, but
now
> > you've stopped. Why is this?"
> > Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so
trivial? I
> > have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells
or snake
> > sloughs but am not. I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I
dissolve
> > when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on?
How much
> > more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to
depend! When
> > they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them.
When they
> > are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they
are so
> > powerful, why ask about them either?"
> >
> > from, _Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables
of Chuang
> > Tzu_, by Victor H Mair
> >
lawrence:
> A tough one, I had to look up penumbra in Webster. Evidentally it
is the
> partly lighted part surrounding a complete shadow, for example in a
solar
> eclipse the total eclipse is where the moon completely blocks the
sun making
> a full shadow on the earth, called the umbra. The penumbra is the
area where
> only a bite is taken from the moon making a partial eclipse. So a
penumbra
> can be the halo-like lit part around a shadow.
Li:
Thanks for the foundation. Much better definition than what I found in
my dictionary!
Alright, going to try to break it down, bit by bit, and looking for
collaboration along the way.
When Penumbra asked Shadow what it was doing:
(CT)
> > Shadow said, "I just flit about. Why ask something so
trivial? I
> > have movement but don't know why. I seem like cicada shells
or snake
> > sloughs but am not.
What this part says is that it appears Shadow is merely a hapless puppet
which merely reacts to its surroundings through the laws of physics and
nature--but it isn't. Penumbra, which also appears to follow such laws,
is asking the question.
ld:
semi-awake and dreamer?
li:
(CT)
> >I coalesce when there's fire or sun; I dissolve
> > when there's yin or night. Are these what I must depend on?
Shadow goes on to say that yes, it does follow the laws of physics and
nature, but then asks itself (and Penumbra) whether these things happen
only because of immutable laws--or is there an unnamed ingredient also
at work.
LD:
This idea of shadows reminds me of Plato's metaphor about the cave.
The humans are chained up between the fire and the wall, watching their
shadows. One guy gets loose and goes outside and sees the sun, goes back
and tries to explain, but nobody wants to hear. The lit and the shadowed
are certainly fundamental to yang and yin. And we humans are just
digested sunshine transformed to various functions.. hmm..
DT:
>How much
> > more so is it like this when there's nothing upon which to
depend!
Li:
Is there a way of things beyond the way of things?
LD: Looks like there might be..
Looking in _A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy_, by Wing-Tsit Chan, in
the section on Chi-Tsang, he mentions the mention of Shadow in CT 2 (hi
Jay!):
"The shadow exists because of the body, and the body exists because
of
the Creator. But the Creator originated from nowhere. If the root
exists of itself, it means that the branches are not caused by anything
else. Therefore there are no causes but there are effects.
>When
> > they come, I come with them; when they go, I go with them.
When they
> > are powerful, then I am powerful along with them. Since they
are so
> > powerful, why ask about them either?"
This last part has me mystified! Trying to break on through on it but
so far no luck. HELP! Is the lightbulb going off for anyone on this??
regards,
lisa
maybe 'go with the flow'?
'tis a toughie!
-l
Cinnmngirl
esther1912 wrote:
<alot of snipped stuff>
I am jsut catching up on hundreds of posts to apt since I have been absent for
a while...so someone may have already addressed this.
There are many times in your post, Esther, where you lump the entire apt
newsgroup into one category of person. How very unkind and naive of you.
There probably as many different kinds of beliefs in this ng as there people.
Some of us do belive in God. Some of us don't.
>In the experience of most historians, youcan't kill an idea whose time has
>come
>[likewise, you can NOT
>initiate an idea whose time has NOT come either!] - but this
>group likes to bang it collective head on the wall and try!
Do you have to sound so self-rightous?
The
>group will collectively potty mouth anyone who asks the
>question.
Excuse me...but "the group will collectively potty mouth.."????????? I don't
think so. Some will, yes. But even you will have to admit that the "potty
mouths" are in the minority.
The court jester here - Rick/Spawn will try to
>intimidate and rattle peopleAND as is the pattern, when it all gets
>too hot ....very interestingly... some strange flame war from the
>outside "mysteriously" appears and distracts everyone long
>enough for the topic to die off ... for a while. This pattern I've
>noticed in just 9 months on the group here!
While I generally don't agree with all that Rick says I do find that I always
learn something from the exchanges that he (and everyone else) take part in.
I happen to believe in God. I happen to believe that all the spiritual
philosophies (not religions--different subject) come from the same source.
However, I do abide by the underlying theory that this is a PHILOSOPHY group.
There are some here that don't believe in God, but do believe in Tao. While I
can't understand this concept...I respect their views.
I know that I don't take part in the apt as much as most...generally I'm just
sitting in the corner listening...but I was personally offended by the tone of
your post and your rush to judgement in "warning" to ELG about all us "anti-God
folks".
Peace and Love,
Donna
Cinnmngirl
Peter,
Been meaning to drop you a note for a really long time. I enjoy reading your
posts in apt. I have been "out of the loop" for a while. Just now going
through and sorting all that have posted in the past two or three weeks. Have
you any idea how long it takes to do that?? :-) Really can't get behind on
these things or you never catch up.
Anyway...I just read your post on "how to not mention God". It was beautiful.
Thank you.
peace and love,
Donna
>
>lisa <lk...@gte.net> wrote:
>>Esther1912 (aka Typhoid Mary) wrote:
>>Whoever you are, go away.
>
>as always you have the power to ignore her.
>
>i find her comments on topic.
>
>i don't necessarily agree or disagree.
>
>for a group of people who have this thing about
> "the way", you spend alot of energy trying to change
> the way things are.
>
>* * *
>
>esther's comments often (almost always) rub the wrong way.
>i don't think she gets why they are so irritating.
>she is blind to her own bias and her high-handedness.
>
>i think it is worthwhile to consider the gist of what she is saying.
>and if you have considered the gist, then you can move on to other
>things, and let those who are interested speak on it.
>
>it is unfortunate that gist is presented by someone many dislike
>and in a fashion almost guaranteed to irritate, but to dismiss it
>solely on those basis would mean asking any number of other people
>to leave.
>
>* * *
>
>in my experience, the areas that cause the most vehement, violent,
>and/or irrational responses are places worth exploring.
>cautiously or incautiously.
>these places tend to be places that matter to people for one reason
>or another.
>
>* * *
>
>jay had the audacity to present an image that seemed to imply
>that judeo-christian-islamic traditions had a problem with heresy,
>and that taoism did not. but many of you do have a problem with
>heresy.
>
>* * *
>
>i forget his name, but the guy who is making the heterodox
>list makes be laugh. not because i think he is foolish, but
>because i find it a delicious challenge to resolve the establishing
>of a heterodox grouping.
>
>* * *
>
>what i think ties these things together is the resolution of
>paradox.
>
>some believe "tao is everything."
> but many of these same people spend a great deal of time rejecting things.
> why?
>
>some believe they are impartial, and
> yet must use words that create partiality.
> what to do?
>
>in reaching for the heterodox, how do you resolve crossing into
> the orthodox?
>
>the wiccans quote, "if it harms none, do what you will."
> but what is harm?
>
>paradox largely arises from the making of distinctions.
>a boundry between this and that. everything, nothing.
> harm. not-harm. heterodoxy. orthodoxy. yin. yang.
> tao. not-tao. taoism. not-taoism.
>
>but the world is whole, and boundries are fickle.
>how you resolve paradoxes. how you deal with the swirling
>motion of yin and yang. how you divide the world.
>how you deal with the world and your divisions.
>
>these things are the how of how you live. they are the way
>you interact with the tao. everything you do/are has been
>a part of the dance. these are the form you give to your
>interaction with the tao. these things are the solid reality
>of how you understand the tao.
>
>* * *
>
>where do you live?