"Mountains will be Mountains"

[Brian Hodgert]

There doesn't appear to be any classical text that says this. Where does it come from?

[Tang Huyen]

On 12/6/2013 11:54 AM, Brian Hodgert wrote:

> There doesn't appear to be any classical text
> that says this. Where does it come from?

D. T. Suzuki's Essays in Zen Buddhism, First
Series, p. 12, and the author is given as
Ch'ing-y�an Wei-Hsin "Only Faith". The
Chinese is in the back, p. 370. My rough
translation:

"This old monk, thirty years ago, before
coming to meditate in Chan,
saw mountain as mountain, water as water,
afterward I saw spiritual friends, got an
entry point,
did not see mountain as mountain, water as
water,
but now I get a resting place, it is just
like before,
I see mountain only as mountain, water
only as water."

Hs�an-sha: "Mountain is mountain. River is
river. There is no place, in the whole
world of ten quarters, that is not true."

Those two instances are close to what you
mention, I hope.

Tang Huyen

[Brian Hodgert]

On Friday, 6 December 2013 12:00:44 UTC-6, Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 12/6/2013 11:54 AM, Brian Hodgert wrote:
>
>
>
> > There doesn't appear to be any classical text
>
> > that says this. Where does it come from?
>
>
>
> D. T. Suzuki's Essays in Zen Buddhism, First
>
> Series, p. 12, and the author is given as
>

> Ch'ing-y�an Wei-Hsin "Only Faith". The

>
> Chinese is in the back, p. 370. My rough
>
> translation:
>
>
>
> "This old monk, thirty years ago, before
>
> coming to meditate in Chan,
>
> saw mountain as mountain, water as water,
>
> afterward I saw spiritual friends, got an
>
> entry point,
>
> did not see mountain as mountain, water as
>
> water,
>
> but now I get a resting place, it is just
>
> like before,
>
> I see mountain only as mountain, water
>
> only as water."
>
>
>

> Hs�an-sha: "Mountain is mountain. River is

>
> river. There is no place, in the whole
>
> world of ten quarters, that is not true."
>
>
>
> Those two instances are close to what you
>
> mention, I hope.
>
>
>
> Tang Huyen

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I'm surprised a google search on "mountains as mountains" didn't come up with much. Surprising because there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Is_a_Mountain

[Brian Hodgert]

ah...I searched "mountains will be mountains".

[Brian Hodgert]

An interesting puzzle:

below is the letter from the people who created Cicada 3301. There's also a reference to an Osho "koan" that has much the same theme.

-------------------------------------
In the programming language of your choice build a TCP server
that implements the protocol below. The server code must be
written by you and you alone, although you are free to use any
modules or libraries publicly available for the selected
programming language.

Once you have done this, make it accessible as a Tor hidden
service. Then provide us with the onion address and port
via a GPG-encrypted email to this address.

You have until 0:00 UTC on 3 Feb, 2013. Any emails received
after that time will be ignored.

Good luck.

3301

====================================================================


1. INTRODUCTION

The TCP server MUST listen on an arbitrary port, and send and
receive plain text with lines separated by <CRLF> (representing
a carriage return followed by a line feed). The TCP server MUST
disregard the case of input.

In the examples below, lines sent by the server will be preceded
with "S:" and lines sent by the client will be preceded by "C:"

Each message sent by the server MUST conform to the format:

[CODE] [RESPONSE NAME] [RESPONSE (optional)]<CRLF>

Where [CODE] and [RESPONSE NAME] is one of:

CODE RESPONSE NAME
00 Welcome
01 Ok
02 Error
03 Data
99 Goodbye


2. PROCEDURES

a. Remote Connection

Upon receiving a remote connection, the server MUST greet the
client with a 00 WELCOME message. The RESPONSE of a welcome
message MAY contain arbitrary text. The arbitrary text MUST
at the very least contain the name of the programming language
used to implement the server.

Upon receiving a 00 WELCOME message, the client may begin
initiating procedures.

Example:

S: 00 WELCOME [ARBITRARY RESPONSE TEXT]<CRLF>


b. RAND [n]

Upon receiving a "RAND" request by the client, the server will
first send a 01 OK response, and will then provide the client
with [n] cryptographically random numbers within the range of
0-255. Each number MUST be followed by <CRLF>. After the last
number has been sent, the server MUST send a dot (.) on a line
by itself.

Example:

C: RAND 3<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>
S: [first random number]<CRLF>
S: [second random number]<CRLF>
S: [third random number]<CRLF>
S: .<CRLF>


c. QUINE

Upon receiving a "QUINE" request by the client, the server will
first send a 01 OK response, and will then provide the client
with a quine in the programming language used to implement the
server. This quine does not have to be original. After the last
line of code has been sent, the server MUST send a dot (.) on a
line by itself.

Example:

C: QUINE<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>
S: [quine code]<CRLF>
S: .<CRLF>


d. BASE29 [n]

Upon receiving a "BASE29" request by the client, the server will
send a 01 OK response followed by the number [n] converted into
its base 29 representation.

Example:

C: BASE29 3301<CRLF>
S: 01 OK 3QO<CRLF>


e. CODE

Upon receiving a "CODE" request by the client, the server will
send a 01 OK response followed by its own source code. After the
last line of code has been sent, the server MUST send a dot(.) on
a line by itself.

Example:

C: CODE<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>
S: [Server Source Code]<CRLF>
s: .<CRLF>


f. KOAN

Upon receiving a "KOAN" request by the client, the server will
send a 01 OK response followed by a koan. After the last line of
the koan, the server MUST send a dot (.) on a line by itself.

Example:

C: KOAN<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>
S: A master who lived as a hermit on a mountain was asked by a<CRLF>
S: monk, "What is the Way?<CRLF>
S: "What a fine mountain this is," the master said in reply<CRLF>
S: "I am not asking you about the mountain, but about the Way.<CRLF>
S: "So long as you cannot go beyond the mountain, my son, you<CRLF>
S: cannot reach the Way," replied the master<CRLF>
S: .


g. DH [p]

Upon receiving a "DH" request by the client, the server will proceed
to perform a Diffie-Hellman key exchange using [p] as the prime modulus.
The server will then select a base [b] to use in the protocol, as well as
its secret integer. The server will then compute its exponent result [e]
as specified within the Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol.

The server MUST then respond with a 01 OK response followed by the
selected base [b] and computed exponent [e] separated by white space.

The client MUST respond with its exponent result [e2], and the client and
server will follow the rest of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol.

The server MUST then compute the resulting secret key, and provide it
using 03 DATA [k].

Example:

C: DH 23<CRLF>
S: 01 OK 5 8<CRLF>
C: 19<CRLF>
S: 03 DATA 2<CRLF>


j. NEXT

Upon receiving a "NEXT" request by the client, the server will respond
with 01 OK and then listen for text data to be provided by the client.
The client will send a dot (.) on a line by itself after the last line
of text. The server MUST record this. This data will be the next set
of instructions. Once the data is received the server will respond
with 01 OK.

Example:

C: NEXT<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>
C: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<CRLF>
C: [MESSAGE CONTENTS]<CRLF>
C: -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<CRLF>
C: .<CRLF>
S: 01 OK<CRLF>


i. GOODBYE

Upon receiving a "DH" request by the client, the server MUST respond with
99 GOODBYE and then gracefully close the connection.

Example:

C: GOODBYE<CRLF>
S: 99 GOODBYE<CRLF>

[Tang Huyen]

On 12/7/2013 4:54 PM, Brian Hodgert wrote:

> An interesting puzzle:
>
> below is the letter from the people who created Cicada 3301.
>There's also a reference to an Osho "koan" that has much the
>same theme.
>

> [snip]
>
> ====================================================================

>
> f. KOAN
>
> Upon receiving a "KOAN" request by the client, the server will
> send a 01 OK response followed by a koan. After the last line of
> the koan, the server MUST send a dot (.) on a line by itself.
>
> Example:
>
> C: KOAN<CRLF>
> S: 01 OK<CRLF>
> S: A master who lived as a hermit on a mountain was asked by a<CRLF>
> S: monk, "What is the Way?<CRLF>
> S: "What a fine mountain this is," the master said in reply<CRLF>
> S: "I am not asking you about the mountain, but about the Way.<CRLF>
> S: "So long as you cannot go beyond the mountain, my son, you<CRLF>
> S: cannot reach the Way," replied the master<CRLF>

One of the simple, simple-minded slogans in
generic mental culture is: "Take a few deep
breaths and reconsider." Another one is:
"Stop and smell the roses (or the coffee,
or whatever)." Yet many presumably seasoned
practitioners on these boards never bother
about them, but charge ahead to do whatever
they choose to do, like blowing up for ten
years straight, without letup.

If one is in front of something beautiful
and restful, like a fine mountain or
whatever, one can be forgiven for spending
a moment admiring it, but people who don't
bother about any such moment of rest charge
ahead to do heavy-duty mental culture, like
icecream cones or whatever. As the above
master says, "So long as you cannot go
beyond the mountain, my son, you cannot
reach the Way."

Elementary, but some people never think
about that, even after twenty or thirty
years (or more) in industrial-strength
mental culture.

On alt.zen, pi quotes the following:

When he returned to Japan, someone asked
Dōgen, "What did you bring back from
China?" Dōgen answered, "I came back
empty-handed. All I have is this: Eyes
horizontal, nose vertical."

Wherever one is, there one is. If one
cannot abide it, even for a moment, why
bother with mental culture? And if one is
happy with one's package, whatever it is
or is not, why does one need mental
culture?

Tang Huyen

[Brian Hodgert]

It's a bit of a balance. Roses and coffee are the fruits of labour (some roses are wild). The fear for some is that rest equates to chaos and collapse. Heavy duty mind tidying keeps the mind from collapsing into chaos. There is no rest for the compulsive. They are damned.

[brian mitchell]

Tang Huyen wrote:


>Wherever one is, there one is. If one
>cannot abide it, even for a moment, why
>bother with mental culture? And if one is
>happy with one's package, whatever it is
>or is not, why does one need mental
>culture?

Presumably you were, at some point, dissatisfied with your package and tried enhancing it with some
mental culture?

[Brian Hodgert]

There's a song called "Cicada" by a band named "Osho". A google search on Osho and Cicada will get you to a site that has the mp3. I'm not setup for any way to decrypt an mp3.

[Brian Hodgert]

I spent a few hours looking into the song but Cicada 3301 seems to be a game primarily for cryptologists. I would have enjoyed contributing something on the irc but the stuff they were talking would probably take me 3 or 4 years just to get started.

Unlike "cracking" Buddhism (and by that I mean I'm comfortable with most of the terminology and concepts), the crypto stuff might require more intelligence than I have naturally. I don't doubt that with effort and time I could get comfortable with crypto conversations, but I doubt I would get a return on that time and effort.

There's a lot of good take-away from learning the terminology and concepts of Buddhism, crypto study may only offer the benefits of satisfaction that come when puzzles are solved. I imagine a lot of crypto people are "chasing the dragon" - they are constantly seeking but are never coming to a state of acceptance.

The danger aspect of crypto study has the reverse effect on guys like me, the fear of potential harm should repel not draw us closer. Guys like me are genetically predisposed to go sniffing in the dark corners. It is the scout instinct that human and animal societies needed to keep finding new grubs and protective caves.

The scout instinct also sends guys up mountains to go looking for release from these compulsions.

[brian mitchell]

Brian Hodgert wrote:

>I imagine a lot of crypto people are "chasing the dragon" - they are constantly seeking but are never coming to a state of acceptance.

In Leonard Cohen's song "The Stranger", the stranger is a gambler who's always:
"looking for a card so high and wild
he'll never have to deal another."

Is there no high and wild card implicit in Buddhism?

And speaking of crypto study, in the Osho koan, what is meant by "going beyond the mountain"? Do you
think there may be a translation error? After all, when asked about the Way, the Master indicates
the mountain on which they both already stand. It is the student who wants more. Perhaps it should
be something more like: "In seeking (to go) beyond the mountain you miss the Way." Isn't that closer
to acceptance?

[Brian Hodgert]

That would support Tang's interpretation. I'm still inclined to say it is a retelling of mountains as mountains. "What a fine mountain" is the sublime state of viewing the mountain whereas the travellers view is one of the conventional view of the mountain. The master tells him, "you have to get rid of your conventional view before you can get to the sublime view.

[brian mitchell]

That also makes sense. But that sublime view... isn't that the dragon, the high wild card? Is that
reached by passive acceptance, I wonder?


(ps: for reasons known only to itself, Google Groups places an additional <CRLF> between every line
of text and then, on the next iteration, between its own additional lines, so if the Google
Groups-user doesn't edit or trim, posts double in size with each reply, quickly becoming hundreds of
lines in length, mostly of white space, and increasingly difficult to read. Just saying...)

[Brian Hodgert]

On Sunday, 8 December 2013 21:11:07 UTC-6, brian mitchell wrote:
> Brian Hodgert wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, 8 December 2013 20:14:53 UTC-6, brian mitchell wrote:
>
> >> Brian Hodgert wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >I imagine a lot of crypto people are "chasing the dragon" - they are constantly seeking but are never coming to a state of acceptance.
>
> >>
>
> >> In Leonard Cohen's song "The Stranger", the stranger is a gambler who's always:
>
> >> "looking for a card so high and wild
>
> >> he'll never have to deal another."
>
> >>
>
> >> Is there no high and wild card implicit in Buddhism?
>
> >>
>
> >> And speaking of crypto study, in the Osho koan, what is meant by "going beyond the mountain"? Do you
>
> >> think there may be a translation error? After all, when asked about the Way, the Master indicates
>
> >> the mountain on which they both already stand. It is the student who wants more. Perhaps it should
>
> >> be something more like: "In seeking (to go) beyond the mountain you miss the Way." Isn't that closer
>
> >> to acceptance?
>
> >
>
> >That would support Tang's interpretation. I'm still inclined to say it is a retelling of mountains as mountains. "What a fine mountain" is the sublime state of viewing the mountain whereas the travellers view is one of the conventional view of the mountain. The master tells him, "you have to get rid of your conventional view before you can get to the sublime view.
>
>
>
> That also makes sense. But that sublime view... isn't that the dragon, the high wild card? Is that
>
> reached by passive acceptance, I wonder?
>
>
>
>

I say, "acceptance to the extreme", meaning that even if one doesn't get to the sublime mountain one accepts that one isn't at the sublime. This is my vector to Tang's "relax and be serene". The acceptance that one isn't at the sublime is the sublime state.

For this to make "sense" (in the Nagarjuna way) conventional concepts will have to be seen as ultimately "form is emptiness"/"mountains as not mountains". Rational mind simply can't comprehend "accept that one has not accepted"....so one just dissolves it all and let's it coalesce shorn of the "dragon" or "high wild card". In reality, the dragon could still be there and one might still chase it, a "damned" state, but even then, the "damned" state is accepted.

[Brian Hodgert]

This is all still speculation.

[Tang Huyen]

On 12/9/2013 11:29 AM, Brian Hodgert wrote:

> This is all still speculation.

It is all speculation until you arrive
at peace with yourself. Even if you have
the greatest master on earth verify your
attainment, how do you know that he is
not lying to you? And how do you know
that he is the greatest master on earth?
You can know that he is the greatest
master on earth only if you have the
same attainment as he does (or a higher
attainment than he does), but then why
do you need his verification or whatever?
If you arrive at peace with yourself,
you don't need any verification or
certification or whatever. If you arrive
at peace with yourself, you arrive at
peace with yourself. If you still need
somebody else to verify or certify your
peace with yourself, you have not
arrived at peace with yourself.

Tang Huyen

[Brian Hodgert]

I was hanging on to my own words. Trying to brush them off. Even that exposes my clinging.

[brian mitchell]

Tang Huyen wrote:

>On 12/9/2013 11:29 AM, Brian Hodgert wrote:
>
>> This is all still speculation.
>
>It is all speculation until you arrive

>at peace with yourself...

"Who is it whom I address,
who takes down what I confess?
Are you the teachers of my heart?
We teach old hearts to rest."
[L. Cohen]

[liaM]

Le 12/9/2013 11:18 PM, brian mitchell a �crit :

Too subtle. I heard Cohen left the LA Zen temple
where he was a monk because he suffered from depression.
I saw a clip of him with a big smile and a hearty
greeting returning to the temple for a visit..

[niunian]

Actually, it's too absurd or incoherent. Only the mind can have a
teacher, and the heart is forever young. So the word "heart" should be
the word "mind" instead. It shows the author had no clear idea what it
was he was trying to say.

[noname]

Well said, Tang.

Now, why does your phrase "at peace with yourself" need the words "with
yourself"? Does it refer to a solipsistic world where only oneself
exists? What of the changes imposed by the world without consideration
of our peacefulness? Do the words "with yourself" imply that being "at
peace with yourself" yet still railing at the glitches life throws into
your face is adequate? Isn't peace "with yourself" a rather simplistic
view that can be developed in a cave atop a mountain but is not
necessarily portable when one descends into the war zone? Isn't it when
we come to appreciate the distractions and interruptions and annoyances
of life as something beyond mere interference with the embodiment of our
desires that we begin to truly become "at peace"?

[noname]

On 12/09/2013 10:10 PM, niunian wrote:
> Only the mind can have a teacher, and the heart is forever young.

It is not necessary that learning destroy innocence; common, but not
necessary... in fact there is a learning that restores innocence.

[niunian]

Why? What's so good about innocence?

[liaM]

Le 12/10/2013 1:52 PM, niunian a �crit :

he probably means "radical innocence" - check google on the phrase
adding "William Blake"

[niunian]

OK, but I still don't understand. Why the radical innocence when the
true wisdom is easily at hand thanks to the post-modern information age?

[brian mitchell]

Yeah, well, what do poets know!
Come the Great Spiritual Revolution
they'll be the first to go.

[niunian]

I guess no one really knows what was going on in the minds of poets when
they wrote what they wrote. Modern English has separated the mind from
the heart. Perhaps one day we will see them join together again.

[noname]

I referred to the innocence that is without goal or guile, free from
subtle or blatant motives, simply being, as one is. In our modern world
it is most often seen in small children, for a while, before they become
indoctrinated to Desire what is seen as advantageous for themselves,
before they become blinded and can no longer see that it is only true
innocence which is advantageous.

[noname]

"the true wisdom" teaches only the mind, the heart is not taught by the
mind except insofar as the mind leads the individual to experience this
or that from which the heart learns; the heart always learns, even when
the mind does not.

The mind can conclude that this or that will result in liberation but in
doing so it remains unliberated; the heart that can liberate the mind,
but the mind can only talk about it.

And I use the word "heart" in the metaphorical sense rather than the
anatomical.

[niunian]

I think the heart never needs to learn. The heart only needs to be what
it is supposed to be. No learning is necessary. As for innocence, it was
already lost with only its ignorance dragging on. Only by wisdom can
there be the end of that ignorance. It's why the little kids need to
learn knowledge, and hopefully one day they may also be able to acquire
wisdom.

[noname]

Your heart is then no more than a rock, dead and motionless, without life.

> As for innocence, it was
> already lost with only its ignorance dragging on. Only by wisdom can
> there be the end of that ignorance. It's why the little kids need to
> learn knowledge, and hopefully one day they may also be able to acquire
> wisdom.

Children learn, it's what they do, it can't be prevented. Old people
forget; when information is forgotten, its understanding may remain.

You say "the heart only needs to be what it is supposed to be".

Who is it that determines what the heart "is supposed to be", some God
who has given you the unchanging heart of a rock? Why has that been
done, because your God desires that it be so? If your God follows
Desire, why are you pissing around pretending to Buddhism?

[niunian]

"No learning is necessary" means having the kind of certainty and truth
which can't be affected by the information or knowledge of the mind.

>
>> As for innocence, it was
>> already lost with only its ignorance dragging on. Only by wisdom can
>> there be the end of that ignorance. It's why the little kids need to
>> learn knowledge, and hopefully one day they may also be able to acquire
>> wisdom.
>
> Children learn, it's what they do, it can't be prevented. Old people
> forget; when information is forgotten, its understanding may remain.

Sure. The understanding can be precious, but it's not as precious as the
learning itself. If the purpose of the learning is known, if the source
of the understanding is found, then both the information and its
understanding can be thrown away and forgotten. No more notebooks and
secret writings. The mind is truly free.

>
> You say "the heart only needs to be what it is supposed to be".

Yes, the heart only needs to be true.

>
> Who is it that determines what the heart "is supposed to be", some God
> who has given you the unchanging heart of a rock? Why has that been
> done, because your God desires that it be so?

I can't be sure it is because of God's desire. I only know that is what
it is. The heart will always remain truthful no matter what happens.

If your God follows
> Desire, why are you pissing around pretending to Buddhism?

Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
they must have come from the same source.

[noname]

The events that occur within your life constitute information and
knowledge to the mind, but a different kind of food for the heart; the
heart learns because of what it is, and what food-of-events comes to it,
no matter their source.

There is no "supposed to be", that judgmental view is part of the
Abrahamic mindset that comes with Christianity; the heart is what it is.

>>
>>> As for innocence, it was
>>> already lost with only its ignorance dragging on. Only by wisdom can
>>> there be the end of that ignorance. It's why the little kids need to
>>> learn knowledge, and hopefully one day they may also be able to acquire
>>> wisdom.
>>
>> Children learn, it's what they do, it can't be prevented. Old people
>> forget; when information is forgotten, its understanding may remain.
>
> Sure. The understanding can be precious, but it's not as precious as the
> learning itself.

Learning is a process, understanding is its result; the learning process
is precious only because of the changes it brings forth, which are
called understanding. The process has direct effects, and meta-effects,
but both result in understanding.

> If the purpose of the learning is known, if the source
> of the understanding is found, then both the information and its
> understanding can be thrown away and forgotten. No more notebooks and
> secret writings. The mind is truly free.

Recognizing only the subtle meta-meanings accompanying events, a moron
becomes undetectable from a genius through his actions alone; this is
what TTC-15 is about, it describes the sage following only Tao:

"The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive.
The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable.
Because it is unfathomable,
All we can do is describe their appearance.
Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream.
Alert, like men aware of danger.
Courteous, like visiting guests.
Yielding like ice about to melt.
Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood.
Hollow, like caves.
Opaque, like muddy pools.
Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change."
http://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap15

>>
>> You say "the heart only needs to be what it is supposed to be".
>
> Yes, the heart only needs to be true.

The essence of the heart is not some metric that can be measured and
judged as being within the prescribed limits, "what it is supposed to
be"; it simply is.

>>
>> Who is it that determines what the heart "is supposed to be", some God
>> who has given you the unchanging heart of a rock? Why has that been
>> done, because your God desires that it be so?
>
> I can't be sure it is because of God's desire.

Perhaps because "God's desire" is an oxymoron; any god which remains
ensnared in desire is not God.

> I only know that is what
> it is. The heart will always remain truthful no matter what happens.

Truth (steadfastness), purity, innocence... these are words for a single
concept.

> If your God follows
>> Desire, why are you pissing around pretending to Buddhism?
>
> Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
> religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
> they must have come from the same source.
>

Everything came from the same source, but there are significant
differences between the views you refer to.

Christianity springs from the Abrahamic view that all was created by a
creative-author "God", but begs the question of where "God" came from.

The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) acknowledges that no
orderly existence can be without a way of order and calls that way of
order "Tao" for purposes of referring to it.

One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
are imperfect.

[linuxgal]

noname wrote:

> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
> are imperfect.

So Tao is entropy. Typhoons carry off the heat of the Pacific Ocean and
converts it to mechanical energy, which then bashes against the land,
and ultimately spills back into space in the form of infrared radiation,
all done while God is out shopping.

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

http://www.cleanposts.com

[niunian]

On 12/13/2013 06:54 PM, noname wrote:
>
>> I only know that is what
>> it is. The heart will always remain truthful no matter what happens.
>
> Truth (steadfastness), purity, innocence... these are words for a single
> concept.

Yes, and it's only found in the heart.

[niunian]

On 12/13/2013 06:54 PM, noname wrote:
>>

>> Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
>> religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
>> they must have come from the same source.
>>
>
> Everything came from the same source, but there are significant
> differences between the views you refer to.
>
> Christianity springs from the Abrahamic view that all was created by a
> creative-author "God", but begs the question of where "God" came from.

If you know that Tao is God, then you should know that God is the
existence with no beginning or end.

>
> The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) acknowledges that no
> orderly existence can be without a way of order and calls that way of
> order "Tao" for purposes of referring to it.

You are mistaking the natural law as Tao. The way has nothing to do with
natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
selflessness, the non-self-doing. It has nothing to do with how or why
the rain is falling from the sky.

>
> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
> are imperfect.

Yes. That's because you don't understand God, and understand even less
about Tao.

[niunian]

On 12/13/2013 06:54 PM, noname wrote:
>>

>> Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
>> religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
>> they must have come from the same source.
>>
>
> Everything came from the same source, but there are significant
> differences between the views you refer to.
>
> Christianity springs from the Abrahamic view that all was created by a
> creative-author "God", but begs the question of where "God" came from.

If you know that Tao is God, then you should know that God is the
existence with no beginning or end.

>

> The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) acknowledges that no
> orderly existence can be without a way of order and calls that way of
> order "Tao" for purposes of referring to it.

You are mistaking the natural law as Tao. The way has nothing to do with
natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
selflessness, the non-self-doing. It has nothing to do with how or why
the rain is falling from the sky.

>

> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
> are imperfect.

[{:-])))]

niunian wrote:
> noname wrote:
>
>> The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) ...
>
>You are mistaking ...

An interpretation is an interpretation.
Make no mistake about it.

To assert an interpretation is a mistake
suggests there exists something objective
which is beyond interpretation.

A problem with being objective
is that objects involve subjects.
Objectivity entails subjectivity.

The view outside my front door,
as seen through my eyes, at night,
during a full Moon, exists, as it appears,
to me, through my eyes.

To think there is some mistake,
that the greys are actually reds
and the yellows are really whites
suggests color has a reality of its own
beyond any light source or eyes to see it.

A red car in the day
can be a grey car at night.
A white car at night can turn
out to be yellow in day light.

To presume a color a car really is
as seen through green sunglasses
is the really real color of a car
tends to be a presumption.

Likewise, to presume
a mistake exists within
one's interpretation
is presumptive.

- fwiw

[Mouse]

careful, - fwiw, you're gonna kill the usenet

--
<:3 )~

[noname]

On 12/12/2013 07:52 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> noname wrote:
>
>> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
>> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
>> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
>> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing
>> it are imperfect.
>
> So Tao is entropy. Typhoons carry off the heat of the Pacific Ocean and
> converts it to mechanical energy, which then bashes against the land,
> and ultimately spills back into space in the form of infrared radiation,
> all done while God is out shopping.
>

Not entropy.

[noname]

Where is the heart?

If I use the term "essential nature", or the term "Te", how would those
compare with "the heart"?

[noname]

On 12/13/2013 10:10 AM, niunian wrote:
> On 12/13/2013 06:54 PM, noname wrote:
>>>
>>> Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
>>> religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
>>> they must have come from the same source.
>>>
>>
>> Everything came from the same source, but there are significant
>> differences between the views you refer to.
>>
>> Christianity springs from the Abrahamic view that all was created by a
>> creative-author "God", but begs the question of where "God" came from.
>
> If you know that Tao is God, then you should know that God is the
> existence with no beginning or end.

And if I know that Tao is not God? Discussing "God" is difficult
because everyone seems to have a different meaning for the word. What
if I know that Tao is not a supreme-ultimate-being but rather the way
things occur, what then?

>>
>> The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) acknowledges that no
>> orderly existence can be without a way of order and calls that way of
>> order "Tao" for purposes of referring to it.
>
> You are mistaking the natural law as Tao.

I am mistaking it, am I? Oh. What is "the natural law" that you refer to?

> The way has nothing to do with
> natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
> selflessness, the non-self-doing.

What you describe there is the way of the sage, the way the sage
interacts with Tao; not the same as Tao.

> It has nothing to do with how or why
> the rain is falling from the sky.

Having "nothing to do" with anything in particular is a large undertaking.

The way of the sage is doing-without-doing, the action of Tao is
returning balance; the sage does-without-doing by allowing things to
take their course, allowing balance to return without obstructing it...
it can only be done from beyond gain and loss.

>>
>> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
>> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
>> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
>> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
>> are imperfect.
>
> Yes. That's because you don't understand God, and understand even less
> about Tao.

What's a moron to do, oh me, oh my, I'm as doomed as doomed can be!

Oh well, if I were not doomed, I would have to maintain my lack of
doomedness, too much work for me when being doomed sets me free from
concern.

[niunian]

They would be found in the heart. The heart is in the middle of your
chest. Whenever you cover your heart with your hand and speak, you are
telling the world that it's your essential nature that is speaking.

[{:-])))]

Entropy is what occurs
after the doors open on Turkey Day,
when all the shoppers go seeking,
knocking everything, a round.

All in quite the rush, pushing
and shoving to get in line many are
out of line and out of bounds yet within
they are feeling great, the power
of the almighty dollars and a
sense of being on point.

As myths attracted to bright lights.
They burn in their yearning for gifts.

Typhoons carry off heat without effort.
Ever since the start, all things are running
down hill without a hitch.

Order arises from disorder,
and disorder out of order.

Round and round their seasons go.

Solstice and equinox. Each in turn.
Taking their time. Wu-wei.

[{:-])))]

noname <nom...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>On 12/13/2013 10:10 AM, niunian wrote:
>> On 12/13/2013 06:54 PM, noname wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Because I see no real difference between Christianity and the eastern
>>>> religions. In fact they have been complimenting each other so well that
>>>> they must have come from the same source.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everything came from the same source, but there are significant
>>> differences between the views you refer to.
>>>
>>> Christianity springs from the Abrahamic view that all was created by a
>>> creative-author "God", but begs the question of where "God" came from.
>>
>> If you know that Tao is God, then you should know that God is the
>> existence with no beginning or end.
>
>And if I know that Tao is not God?

Then, in that case,
you are entirely wrong,
in niunian's view of how things are.

It's very simple, really.

> Discussing "God" is difficult
>because everyone seems to have a different meaning for the word. What
>if I know that Tao is not a supreme-ultimate-being but rather the way
>things occur, what then?

Then perhaps you are a geometer
but not a euclidean geometer.

With euclidean geometers, there is
what is called right. And given such a right,
there is one, and only one, right angle
in a right triangle.

You might be standing on one right now.
Or, possibly you live on a sphere.

Your convex world might bend your mind
in such as way that there can be three rights
and none of them are wrong.

Then again, you may live in a saddle world
wherein a cave is more your home
away from home.

Where none of the angles quite are
that which is known to be right, not quite,
orthogonal, so to speak.

Perhaps your world is as a cube.
It could be difficult to say.
Which right is really right and
what is left remaining.

>>> The Taoistic view (at least as interpreted by me) acknowledges that no
>>> orderly existence can be without a way of order and calls that way of
>>> order "Tao" for purposes of referring to it.
>>
>> You are mistaking the natural law as Tao.
>
>I am mistaking it, am I?

Yes.
To disagree with him
is called, making a mistake.

You must see, his lexicon is his.

> Oh. What is "the natural law" that you refer to?

It's the way he naturally sees things.

>> The way has nothing to do with
>> natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
>> selflessness, the non-self-doing.
>
>What you describe there is the way of the sage, the way the sage
>interacts with Tao; not the same as Tao.

Some folks have said you are Tao.

Each individual may have his or her
individual view, where in all things could
makes sense to him or to her, to have
and to hold, until whenever.

>> It has nothing to do with how or why
>> the rain is falling from the sky.
>
>Having "nothing to do" with anything in particular is a large undertaking.

Having nothing to do,
everything gets done,
all by itself, so to speak.

>The way of the sage is doing-without-doing, the action of Tao is
>returning balance; the sage does-without-doing by allowing things to
>take their course, allowing balance to return without obstructing it...
>it can only be done from beyond gain and loss.

When there is nothing to do.

>>> One way to express it is to say that Tao preceded gods, that the
>>> Abrahamic "God" arose because that was necessary within the balance of
>>> Tao; another way to express it is to say that Tao is "God's will" left
>>> behind while God went out to buy a waterbed; both ways of expressing it
>>> are imperfect.
>>
>> Yes. That's because you don't understand God, and understand even less
>> about Tao.
>
>What's a moron to do, oh me, oh my, I'm as doomed as doomed can be!

Maynard G. happened to occur to me,
this morning, a long a bout four.

>Oh well, if I were not doomed, I would have to maintain my lack of
>doomedness, too much work for me when being doomed sets me free from
>concern.

The way people speak
usually involves how they see.

What they mean is
usually meant to mean
how things appear, to them.

Since you can't see what he sees
in the way he sees things, and he is
unable to see things other than
how he sees things, doom
can mean no hope.

Communication may occur
but not always.

Levels are limited
by the bubble.

[niunian]

On 12/14/2013 04:14 PM, noname wrote:
>
>> The way has nothing to do with
>> natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
>> selflessness, the non-self-doing.
>
> What you describe there is the way of the sage, the way the sage
> interacts with Tao; not the same as Tao.

Actually, that is not right. The sage is called sage because he follows
the way of Tao, not because he owns the Tao as his property or "virtue"
by having his own way that is different from the way of Tao.

>
>> It has nothing to do with how or why
>> the rain is falling from the sky.
>
> Having "nothing to do" with anything in particular is a large undertaking.
>
> The way of the sage is doing-without-doing, the action of Tao is
> returning balance; the sage does-without-doing by allowing things to
> take their course, allowing balance to return without obstructing it...
> it can only be done from beyond gain and loss.
>

You are understanding the doing-without-doing literally. It's logically
false, intellectually dishonest, and practically impossible to do
without doing anything. The term was intended to cause thinking and
investigation of the true meaning. It's not to be taken as some kind of
magic or miracle. If you read the TTC in context, you would understand
that non-doing is actually meant non-self-doing.

[noname]

Excellent, now tell the one about the wicked witch who lives in the
gingerbread house.

[noname]

Learning that my daily life is "logically false, intellectually
dishonest, and practically impossible" is quite shocking! Oh, my!

[niunian]

Right. For those who claim to eat without eating, shit without shitting,
drink without drinking, and sleep without sleeping, they really should
wake up and be honest about it.

[niunian]

Sure. Not even the wicked witch would dare to hold her heart with her
hands and lie.

[noname]

It's unfortunate that you have such a distorted understanding of
doing-without-doing.

The key is initiation, and initiation springs from desire.

[niunian]

Could you explain that? I don't understand.

[{:-])))]

On16 Dec 2013 03:38, XM noname wrote:
>On 12/15/2013 04:22 AM, niunian wrote:
>> On 12/15/2013 04:20 PM, noname wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2013 07:58 PM, niunian wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2013 04:14 PM, noname wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The way has nothing to do with
>>>>>> natural law. The way described by Laozi is the non-doing, the
>>>>>> selflessness, the non-self-doing.

There can be that sense, certainly.

>>>>> What you describe there is the way of the sage, the way the sage
>>>>> interacts with Tao; not the same as Tao.

The Way
the Sage interacts with the Way
is not the same as the Way
sounds like TTC 1.1
in a way.

To draw a distinction
between, "the way of the say"
or "the way the sage interacts with Tao"
and, "Tao" is to draw a distinct ion.

Both of you have said something.
You have both made some sense.

>>>> Actually, that is not right. The sage is called sage because he follows
>>>> the way of Tao, not because he owns the Tao as his property or "virtue"
>>>> by having his own way that is different from the way of Tao.

To think noname was suggesting
that the sage owns the Tao
suggests to me something
that noname didn't say.

By following the course of a river
one's way and the river's way are
in a way the same way.

By interacting with the river,
it can be said there is a difference.

Why one draws a distinct-
ion in the process might be of interest.

>>>>>> It has nothing to do with how or why
>>>>>> the rain is falling from the sky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having "nothing to do" with anything in particular is a large
>>>>> undertaking.

Especially when one is not separate
from eveything that occurs. Large can
include all. All includes even the small.

>>>>> The way of the sage is doing-without-doing, the action of Tao is
>>>>> returning balance; the sage does-without-doing by allowing things to
>>>>> take their course, allowing balance to return without obstructing it...
>>>>> it can only be done from beyond gain and loss.

The river flows where it flows.
It will flow where it will flow.

Not that it has a will
nor a mind of its own in a way.

Yet, in a way it can be said
to have a will and a mind of its own.

Why something is said
or not said, or said in a different way,
can be the stuff words are made of.

>>>> You are understanding the doing-without-doing literally.

At times there is the literal.
At times there is the metaphorical.

Waiting for mud to settle,
not stirring the water in the small pool
on the banks of the river, not stepping into it,
can be literally exactly that as well as
metaphorically doing nothing.

>>>> It's logically
>>>> false, intellectually dishonest, and practically impossible to do
>>>> without doing anything.

Words and their meanings are limited
by those who ascribe meanings
to the words being used.

>>>> The term was intended to cause thinking and
>>>> investigation of the true meaning. It's not to be taken as some kind of
>>>> magic or miracle.

At times magic and miracles occur.
When they do, they may be seen and felt
as if they were supernatural or simply natural.

As if the entire manifest world
suddenly shifted into a different dimension
where what was not possible
suddenly is reality.

>>>> If you read the TTC in context, you would understand
>>>> that non-doing is actually meant non-self-doing.

A line of text may have many contexts.
Words have many meanings.

Without having a self, with no-self,
all of one's doing is non-self-doing,
hence, one always does nothing.

With a self, being a self, having a self,
there are times when one is selfless,
when one is not thinking about self
in terms of one's own, what one
owns and how an owner ship
may sail on a river.

>>> Learning that my daily life is "logically false, intellectually
>>> dishonest, and practically impossible" is quite shocking! Oh, my!

When money appears out of nowhere
and rain drops don't reach one's coat
it may be logically false yet true,
intellectually baffling yet occur,
and practically impossible yet
actually happen, so as to
shock a wake-up call
as a clue crumber.

>> Right. For those who claim to eat without eating, shit without shitting,
>> drink without drinking, and sleep without sleeping, they really should
>> wake up and be honest about it.

When things happen
there are those who feel, who sense,
that it is not being done by them.

Some may, at times, see their mouth
as chewing food, but not feel as if they
are their mouth. Their bodies are apart
from any sense of self, from being
their sense of who they are.

As if others are not them.
As if they are simply watching.
As everything unfolds.
All by itself.

>It's unfortunate that you have such a distorted understanding of
>doing-without-doing.
>
>The key is initiation, and initiation springs from desire.

Aye, being initiated into an esoteric,
hidden in plain sight view, might be what
some seekers seek to be and have.

To know the truth of the Truth
of all things great and small.

They knock.

Others knock knock.

The rest gets to be a bit silly.

Who is there.

Somebody.

Somebody who.

Somebody pulling and
somebody pushing.

Leg
and rock and roll
up a hill.

Who is watching.
Says If Us is in town.
Playing their same old song.
One More Round
(Two Go Ya).

[niunian]

On 12/16/2013 11:13 PM, {:-]))) wrote:

>>>>> Actually, that is not right. The sage is called sage because he follows
>>>>> the way of Tao, not because he owns the Tao as his property or "virtue"
>>>>> by having his own way that is different from the way of Tao.
>
> To think noname was suggesting
> that the sage owns the Tao
> suggests to me something
> that noname didn't say.
>
> By following the course of a river
> one's way and the river's way are
> in a way the same way.
>
> By interacting with the river,
> it can be said there is a difference.
>
> Why one draws a distinct-
> ion in the process might be of interest.

Good you use river as an example. According to Laozi, water would be a
better example. Laozi says that water is almost like Dao. So let's
pretend water is the same as Dao. The way of the water is to help all
things without demanding anything in return. To follow the way of the
water, the sage has to help all people without demanding anything in
return. To interact with water, however, it would mean the sage is
keeping the water as a commodity to attract followers and make a
fortune. I think that is the difference between following the way of the
water(or Dao) and interacting with the way of the water(or Dao).

[niunian]

On 12/16/2013 11:13 PM, {:-]))) wrote:

>>>>> >>>>You are understanding the doing-without-doing literally.
>
> At times there is the literal.
> At times there is the metaphorical.
>
> Waiting for mud to settle,
> not stirring the water in the small pool
> on the banks of the river, not stepping into it,
> can be literally exactly that as well as
> metaphorically doing nothing.

That's the advantage of having a quiet and focused mind, but it does not
mean doing nothing. In fact the mind is actively acquiring understanding
in order to find out the best way to deal with the problem at hand. In
the stillness of the mind, there is a lot of things going on.

>
>>>>> >>>>It's logically
>>>>> >>>>false, intellectually dishonest, and practically impossible to do
>>>>> >>>>without doing anything.

> Words and their meanings are limited
> by those who ascribe meanings
> to the words being used.

That's because there is no such meaning. If the mind can't even imagine
it, there is definitely no way to actually for anybody to practice it.
Laozi intentionally created this big question mark in order to bring our
attention to it.

>
>>>>> >>>>The term was intended to cause thinking and
>>>>> >>>>investigation of the true meaning. It's not to be taken as some kind of
>>>>> >>>>magic or miracle.

> At times magic and miracles occur.
> When they do, they may be seen and felt
> as if they were supernatural or simply natural.
>
> As if the entire manifest world
> suddenly shifted into a different dimension
> where what was not possible
> suddenly is reality.

Although I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe in magic. It
would be sad if the key element of the TTC is based on magic.

[x]

if you define miracles as manifestations transcending ordinary material
scientific explanations caused from a divine or universal nature beyond
human actions of "free will" and agency, which you would call magic, and
you are denying magic because you align to a general view of the
illusory nature of human free will and action and control, especially as
concerns manifestations from "super-natural" dimensions, but perhaps in
general too.... how do you see the Way, or gods will? is it something
that we are able to part from or is that just an illusion of limited
consciousness? if you mean you don't believe in magic because ultimately
the concept is one based on the ignorance about reality and the human
ego and everything is essentially under the control of the Way or of God
or the Universe.... and thus the term miracle would be the only way to
interpret super-natural occurrences (and maybe any occurrences, if you
extend the Way of the perfect equilibrium of the universe all the way
everywhere).... i think i can agree with that view.

but i think there is a point in emphasizing our own power of Will and
individuality and apparent "magickal" powers.... it is kind of like
opening layers of russian dolls to get to the last one.... we would too
easily mistake universal perfection of action in the Way for a state of
subjection to authority and society and the world around us on earth
whereas that's an even bigger lie than our freedom.... so first we must
fuck the system and develop a healthy individual ego and turn within and
trust oneself over the worlds impressions and oppressions upon you....
but when it really comes down to it, when you look deeper into the
source of your own true Will, and who you really are, beyond the social
bullshit you find that you are actually connected on a rather spiritual
level to everything in the universe and your actions are not really
"your actions", and one lets go of the ego and the individuality and
pulls in the oars trusting the universe to act you, which might be what
they call action without action, and it is like a miracle kind of.

[niunian]

I believe miracle is something by the power of the heart, and magic is
something by the power of the mind. Therefore miracle happens without
anyone asking, and magic is just a wishful thinking of the mind. That's
why when we pray we should always pray with our heart instead of our mind.

>
> but i think there is a point in emphasizing our own power of Will and
> individuality and apparent "magickal" powers.... it is kind of like
> opening layers of russian dolls to get to the last one.... we would too
> easily mistake universal perfection of action in the Way for a state of
> subjection to authority and society and the world around us on earth
> whereas that's an even bigger lie than our freedom.... so first we must
> fuck the system and develop a healthy individual ego and turn within and
> trust oneself over the worlds impressions and oppressions upon you....
> but when it really comes down to it, when you look deeper into the
> source of your own true Will, and who you really are, beyond the social
> bullshit you find that you are actually connected on a rather spiritual
> level to everything in the universe and your actions are not really
> "your actions", and one lets go of the ego and the individuality and
> pulls in the oars trusting the universe to act you, which might be what
> they call action without action, and it is like a miracle kind of.

Yea, God made me do it, I had nothing to do with it... :-)

After more than two thousand years quibbling over the words of Laozi,
there has got be some carzy staff made up to justify whatever they are
trying to do.

[{:-])))]

x wrote:
> niunian wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> niunian had written:

>>>>>>> >>>>You are understanding the doing-without-doing literally.
>> >
>>> At times there is the literal.
>>> At times there is the metaphorical.
>>>
>>> Waiting for mud to settle,
>>> not stirring the water in the small pool
>>> on the banks of the river, not stepping into it,
>>> can be literally exactly that as well as
>>> metaphorically doing nothing.
>>
>> That's the advantage of having a quiet and focused mind, but it does not
>> mean doing nothing. In fact the mind is actively acquiring understanding
>> in order to find out the best way to deal with the problem at hand. In
>> the stillness of the mind, there is a lot of things going on.

When in the Zz it speaks of being useless,
there are levels of uselessness involved.

Without action can be a connotation.
Sitting still, without action, can be
a way of interpreting wu-wei.

At times such a mode is okay.
At times, effortless action is more
what less and less can mean to say.

>>> Words and their meanings are limited
>>> by those who ascribe meanings
>>> to the words being used.
>>
>> That's because there is no such meaning.

What wu-wei means
to the ones who use it to level
their levels of balance, as such,
may vary while remaining
on the level.

>> If the mind can't even imagine
>> it, there is definitely no way to actually for anybody to practice it.
>> Laozi intentionally created this big question mark in order to bring our
>> attention to it.

I am able to imagine forms
of what wu-wei is able to mean.

Sitting still. Poetry in motion.
Being in the Zone. Without intent.
Spontaneously doing. All the same
yet different. Wu-wei.

>>>>>>> >>>>The term was intended to cause thinking and
>>>>>>> >>>>investigation of the true meaning. It's not to be taken as
>>>>>>>>>>> some kind of magic or miracle.
>>
>>> At times magic and miracles occur.
>>> When they do, they may be seen and felt
>>> as if they were supernatural or simply natural.
>>>
>>> As if the entire manifest world
>>> suddenly shifted into a different dimension
>>> where what was not possible
>>> suddenly is reality.
>>
>> Although I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe in magic.

I would call that semantics.

>> It
>> would be sad if the key element of the TTC is based on magic.

Elements of animism, shamanism,
yoga theory, alchemy as well as other
atoms of which meanings are derived might
be discovered by chopping up the text.

>if you define miracles as manifestations transcending ordinary material
>scientific explanations caused from a divine or universal nature beyond
>human actions of "free will" and agency, which you would call magic,

Except, he would not knot
in such a fashion of his thought.

> and
>you are denying magic because you align to a general view of the
>illusory nature of human free will and action and control, especially as
>concerns manifestations from "super-natural" dimensions, but perhaps in
>general too.... how do you see the Way, or gods will?

Though you asked him,
none-the-less, for me,
in terms of how I see,
Taoism tends to be
a Way which is
apophatic
to the max,
including that
of any will
involving God.

Hence, to begin, mine eyes carve
God out of the Way, set aside
for various other daze.

To think, in terms of individuals,
as if they are separate from one
another and each other, independent,
having their own wills and wants, for me,
tends to be a thought. Often reified.

As reified, it can be said to be illusory.

And, while such a saying has meaning,
such a meaning itself may be carved
out of the rock it rolled in on.

> is it something
>that we are able to part from or is that just an illusion of limited
>consciousness?

Carving, slicing, dicing, chipping,
carrying one around on one's olders,
could solder one's irons in Teh fires.

Teh appears, among the chapters,
after Tao is long gone and lost.

Magic tends to be a work of Teh.

Miracles simply happen to happen
when the stars have a lined up one day.

Magic would be wei, intentional, active.

Miracle wood be natural, wu-wei, effortless
and without premeditation, going with the flow
beyond one's individual effort, so to speak.

Those who manifest the miraculous
tend to give the credit to God.

Those who are able to do magic
tend to want the glory for their own
s'elves to own, to have and to hold
and which often leads to death
at which time they part
company at institutions,
jails, et al.

> ...
>but when it really comes down to it, when you look deeper into the
>source of your own true Will, and who you really are, beyond the social
>bullshit you find that you are actually connected on a rather spiritual
>level to everything in the universe and your actions are not really
>"your actions", and one lets go of the ego and the individuality and
>pulls in the oars trusting the universe to act you, which might be what
>they call action without action, and it is like a miracle kind of.

Two reads in too.

Doing a double-double
off the high-dive width an half twist,
one enters the water without a splash.

At length, one returns
from the depth.

[{:-])))]

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On 12/16/2013 11:13 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Actually, that is not right. The sage is called sage because he follows
>>>>>> the way of Tao, not because he owns the Tao as his property or "virtue"
>>>>>> by having his own way that is different from the way of Tao.
>>
>> To think noname was suggesting
>> that the sage owns the Tao
>> suggests to me something
>> that noname didn't say.
>>
>> By following the course of a river
>> one's way and the river's way are
>> in a way the same way.
>>
>> By interacting with the river,
>> it can be said there is a difference.
>>
>> Why one draws a distinct-
>> ion in the process might be of interest.
>
>Good you use river as an example. According to Laozi, water would be a
>better example. Laozi says that water is almost like Dao.

Yes.
The best (tai shang ore shang shan)
ruo shui, are akin to water.

http://wayist.org/ttc%20compared/chap08.htm

> So let's
>pretend water is the same as Dao.

I'd call that a metaphor.

> The way of the water is to help all
>things without demanding anything in return.

As well as having no will, no self,
no mind, totally wu-wei, effortless,
without premeditated action.

> To follow the way of the
>water, the sage has to help all people

Without even giving a thought to it.
Naturally being compassionate, without
having any self-interest in the process.

>without demanding anything in
>return. To interact with water, however, it would mean the sage is
>keeping the water as a commodity to attract followers and make a
>fortune.

If that is the spin you want to whirl
the sage-water into being, then that is
how you care to see the spiral in motion.

> I think that is the difference between following the way of the
>water(or Dao) and interacting with the way of the water(or Dao).

Your thoughts, as usual,
present a most unusual way
as they unfold unto me.

[niunian]

On 12/17/2013 10:22 PM, {:-]))) wrote:

>>> >>If the mind can't even imagine
>>> >>it, there is definitely no way to actually for anybody to practice it.
>>> >>Laozi intentionally created this big question mark in order to bring our
>>> >>attention to it.

> I am able to imagine forms
> of what wu-wei is able to mean.
>
> Sitting still. Poetry in motion.
> Being in the Zone. Without intent.
> Spontaneously doing. All the same
> yet different. Wu-wei.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

I disagree. Wu-wei is just a self-less act. People for thousands of
years having no idea what Wu-wei is, have made up all kinds of things to
be called as Wu-wei. The problem is, none of it makes any sense when
compared with the description of Wu-wei in the TTC. I believe if you use
the self-less act to replace the non-doing, you will find the TTC
becomes a lot easier to understand.

[{:-])))]

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On 12/16/2013 11:13 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>>>>>> >>>>You are understanding the doing-without-doing literally.
> >
>> At times there is the literal.
>> At times there is the metaphorical.
>>
>> Waiting for mud to settle,
>> not stirring the water in the small pool
>> on the banks of the river, not stepping into it,
>> can be literally exactly that as well as
>> metaphorically doing nothing.
>
>That's the advantage of having a quiet and focused mind, but it does not
>mean doing nothing.

In your view, naturally.

> In fact the mind is actively acquiring understanding
>in order to find out the best way to deal with the problem at hand. In
>the stillness of the mind, there is a lot of things going on.

The sage can be said to have no mind.

Moreover, no mind of his or her own.

Wu-xin (wu-hsin) can be an earmark.

With wu-wei, wu-xin, wu-ji, et al,
lots of things can be said to be going on.

Yet the terms may all point
to an emptiness in which nothing
can be said to be going on.

>>>>>> >>>>It's logically
>>>>>> >>>>false, intellectually dishonest, and practically impossible to do
>>>>>> >>>>without doing anything.
>
>> Words and their meanings are limited
>> by those who ascribe meanings
>> to the words being used.
>
>That's because there is no such meaning. If the mind can't even imagine
>it, there is definitely no way to actually for anybody to practice it.
>Laozi intentionally created this big question mark in order to bring our
>attention to it.

To think there was a guy,
an old guy, whose name was, Old Guy,
can be a way to think of the sayings
of what's known to some as
the Lao-tzu.

Some say there are many, old guys,
ancients, sayings, which and who contributed
to the two texts ascribed to a legend.

>>>>>> >>>>The term was intended to cause thinking and
>>>>>> >>>>investigation of the true meaning. It's not to be taken as some kind of
>>>>>> >>>>magic or miracle.
>
>> At times magic and miracles occur.
>> When they do, they may be seen and felt
>> as if they were supernatural or simply natural.
>>
>> As if the entire manifest world
>> suddenly shifted into a different dimension
>> where what was not possible
>> suddenly is reality.
>
>Although I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe in magic. It
>would be sad if the key element of the TTC is based on magic.

I'm not sure if there is a key element.

For me there are many keys.
Many elements. A periodic table.

Unlocking the alchemical nature
of Inner Fields of Taoism
can be a key.

And yet, many locks
and blocks and doors tend
knots to be open to sum.

[niunian]

On 12/17/2013 10:22 PM, {:-]))) wrote:

>>> >>Although I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe in magic.

> I would call that semantics.

Spiritually speaking there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Miracle comes from the heart, and it is based on the love in heart. It's
real and it's powerful. Magic is just a trick played by the mind. It's
nothing but an illusion.

[niunian]

On 12/18/2013 12:24 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2013 11:13 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Actually, that is not right. The sage is called sage because he follows
>>>>>>> the way of Tao, not because he owns the Tao as his property or "virtue"
>>>>>>> by having his own way that is different from the way of Tao.
>>>
>>> To think noname was suggesting
>>> that the sage owns the Tao
>>> suggests to me something
>>> that noname didn't say.
>>>
>>> By following the course of a river
>>> one's way and the river's way are
>>> in a way the same way.
>>>
>>> By interacting with the river,
>>> it can be said there is a difference.
>>>
>>> Why one draws a distinct-
>>> ion in the process might be of interest.
>>
>> Good you use river as an example. According to Laozi, water would be a
>> better example. Laozi says that water is almost like Dao.
>
> Yes.
> The best (tai shang ore shang shan)
> ruo shui, are akin to water.
>
> http://wayist.org/ttc%20compared/chap08.htm

Great.

>
>> So let's
>> pretend water is the same as Dao.
>
> I'd call that a metaphor.
>
>> The way of the water is to help all
>> things without demanding anything in return.
>
> As well as having no will, no self,
> no mind, totally wu-wei, effortless,
> without premeditated action.

That would not be water anymore. It would be a robot or zombie instead.

>
>> To follow the way of the
>> water, the sage has to help all people
>
> Without even giving a thought to it.
> Naturally being compassionate, without
> having any self-interest in the process.

Not necessarily. It may not be that simple to help people.

>
>> without demanding anything in
>> return. To interact with water, however, it would mean the sage is
>> keeping the water as a commodity to attract followers and make a
>> fortune.
>
> If that is the spin you want to whirl
> the sage-water into being, then that is
> how you care to see the spiral in motion.

I think that is also many sages do these days. They love to sell water
by the river. The water will quench the students' thirst, and the
students will fill the sage's pocket. Mutual satisfaction. I don't deny
the student has learned something useful, but I will deny the sage has
anything to do with Tao.

>
>> I think that is the difference between following the way of the
>> water(or Dao) and interacting with the way of the water(or Dao).
>
> Your thoughts, as usual,
> present a most unusual way
> as they unfold unto me.
>

Thank you.

[{:-])))]

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/2013 12:24 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> The best (tai shang ore shang shan)
>> ruo shui, are akin to water.
>>
>> http://wayist.org/ttc%20compared/chap08.htm
>
>Great.
>
>>
>>> So let's
>>> pretend water is the same as Dao.
>>
>> I'd call that a metaphor.
>>
>>> The way of the water is to help all
>>> things without demanding anything in return.
>>
>> As well as having no will, no self,
>> no mind, totally wu-wei, effortless,
>> without premeditated action.
>
>That would not be water anymore. It would be a robot or zombie instead.

Water is not aware of itself.

Water does not love all things.

Yet water nourishes all things.

To compare it to a robot or zombie
tends to take a sense of it being organic
out of the world-view in which it may be found.

Water is not itself alive,
yet all organisms depend on it.

The Universe seen as a mechanism
tends to be a modern Western view at times.

The Universe seen organically
has been said to be an Eastern view.

The Western view tends to be more ceramic
wherein a Maker of Things, a potter,
creates mankind out of clay or dirt.

An Eastern view can be more organic
where things unfold, emerge,
without requiring for there to be
a puppet master pulling strings.

Blending various views,
tending to one's inclinations,
bending an ear to a grindstone,
sending thoughts in a stream.

>>> To follow the way of the
>>> water, the sage has to help all people
>>
>> Without even giving a thought to it.
>> Naturally being compassionate, without
>> having any self-interest in the process.
>
>Not necessarily. It may not be that simple to help people.

True.

Not necessarily is exactly a point.

Each situation may vary.

Each nuance, each subtle change
of the meanings of the words,
imparts a spin on context.

>>> without demanding anything in
>>> return. To interact with water, however, it would mean the sage is
>>> keeping the water as a commodity to attract followers and make a
>>> fortune.
>>
>> If that is the spin you want to whirl
>> the sage-water into being, then that is
>> how you care to see the spiral in motion.
>
>I think that is also many sages do these days. They love to sell water
>by the river. The water will quench the students' thirst, and the
>students will fill the sage's pocket. Mutual satisfaction. I don't deny
>the student has learned something useful, but I will deny the sage has
>anything to do with Tao.

Yes. There are plenty of those
and lots of that going on.

[{:-])))]

niunian <niu...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On 12/17/2013 10:22 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>>>> >>If the mind can't even imagine
>>>> >>it, there is definitely no way to actually for anybody to practice it.
>>>> >>Laozi intentionally created this big question mark in order to bring our
>>>> >>attention to it.
>
>> I am able to imagine forms
>> of what wu-wei is able to mean.
>>
>> Sitting still. Poetry in motion.
>> Being in the Zone. Without intent.
>> Spontaneously doing. All the same
>> yet different. Wu-wei.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>
>
>I disagree.

Okay.

>Wu-wei is just a self-less act.

If, for you, that is what it means,
and that is the only meaning it means,
plus is unable to mean any other meaning,
then that is how it is, for you.

> People for thousands of
>years having no idea what Wu-wei is, have made up all kinds of things to
>be called as Wu-wei.

Zhuangzi has some words about words
and how words have meanings.

Words are not just hot air, according to Zz.
Words are meant to convey ideas, to communicate.
And, he goes on, once the idea has been received
then the words used can be set aside.

The meanings, in his view, appear
to me to not be fixed. As it may say in the DDJ,
"ming ke ming fei chang ming" among other things.

Yet, for you, this is not the case.

To fix meanings, to rectify names,
might have been a way of the Confucians,
against with, or in conjunction with, the Taoist
writers, wrote what they wrote
to say what they said.

>The problem is, none of it makes any sense when
>compared with the description of Wu-wei in the TTC.

The word, none, is a generality.

While generalities in general may be true,
there tend to be exceptions to the rule.

> I believe if you use
>the self-less act to replace the non-doing, you will find the TTC
>becomes a lot easier to understand.

I find the TTC very easy to understand.

However, for the joy of it, to see if it fits,
without giving me a fit of other than joy,
I'll see how that pans out.

Thanks!

[{:-])))]

If those are your definitions,
then I would call that semantics.

For someone who sees no difference,
for whom all things are the same,
no matter the discipline,
nor the words used,
then, for that one, there is no
fundamental difference, spiritually
speaking in his or her terminology.

Jargon tends to be specific.

Terms and phrases such as non-dual,
one, unity-consciousness, cosmic or Christ,
might add flavouringings of spice
to an ones uncarved delight.

In other news,
going thru the DDJ,
in search of wu wei,
mine eyes saw deeps
without cutting.

Your interpretation, non-self-doing,
appears to me to be perfectly valid
and sound as sound can sound.

And, at the same time,
other levels may exist within
each as well profound.

[niunian]

On 12/18/2013 07:09 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
>> >I believe if you use
>> >the self-less act to replace the non-doing, you will find the TTC
>> >becomes a lot easier to understand.

> I find the TTC very easy to understand.
>
> However, for the joy of it, to see if it fits,
> without giving me a fit of other than joy,
> I'll see how that pans out.
>
> Thanks!

Great. I'm awaiting for your good news.

[niunian]

Thank you.

[linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:

> A red car in the day
> can be a grey car at night.
> A white car at night can turn
> out to be yellow in day light.

And who's to say which turns right?

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

http://www.cleanposts.com