Re: Invitation To Blast Away at Me me me me

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/4/2014 10:29 PM, Sentiment Bri wrote:

> Tang Huyen:

>> i2i:

>>> everyone deserves to be enlightened.
>>> when god said " I am that I am " he was
>>> saying * I am aware that I am aware * .

>> I take that answer from the Jewish Yahweh to mean
>> a refusal to answer, basically leaving the question
>> and the questioner in place, therefore it is to me
>> roughly equivalent to the common saying, that where
>> you are, there you are. Don't bother about
>> anything, don't examine anything, just stay where
>> you are. There is no better place.

> That doesn't seem to keep with the general tone of
> the whole book.

The whole Book is not consistent. There is that famous
passage:

"And who of you by being worried can add a single hour
to his life? And why are you worried about clothing?
Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not
toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even
Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of
these."

This passage is to me roughly equivalent to the common
saying, that where you are, there you are. Don't
bother about anything, don't examine anything, just
stay where you are. There is no better place.

And the Ecclesiates is a sceptical treatise.

<<Then I said to myself, "As is the fate of the fool,
it will also befall me. Why then have I been extremely
wise?" So I said to myself, "This too is vanity." For
there is no lasting remembrance of the wise man as
with the fool, inasmuch as in the coming days all
will be forgotten. And how the wise man and the fool
alike die! So I hated life, for the work which had
been done under the sun was grievous to me; because
everything is futility and striving after wind.">>

Both passages take the design of the Jewish Yahweh
as irrelevant: "everything is futility and striving
after wind." "Vanity of the vanities."

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/4/2014 10:18 PM, i2i wrote:

> being aware that you are aware, exclusively,
> *is* the pristine state. when they asked god
> what his name was there would be no better
> description of his defining expression except
> by being specific about that pristine state.

As you keep saying, just to be, but not to be anything. In
Buddhist parlance, just look, but do not judge.

"All which happens is as common and familiar as the rose
in spring and the fruits in summer." Marcus Aurelius.

The Meaning of Boddhidharma's coming from the West:

Mysteriously I tell you about the meaning
of Boddhidharma's coming
Moon, lily - both white - are not the same.
Don't stop on either the being or
non-being side of the road.
Hundred thousand river waters
all going to the eastern ocean.

(Seo Kyung Bo - translated by Bill Thawley)

兀然無事坐、春夾草自生

"Sitting quietly, doing nothing,
Spring comes, and the grass grows
by itself."

青山自青山、白雲自白雲

"The blue mountains are of themselves blue mountains;
"The white clouds are of themselves white clouds."

萬古長空 一朝風月

"An eternity of endless space:
A day of wind and moon."

Also some Chinese proverbs:

"The vast sky does not hinder white clouds from flying."

"The ocean is wide enough for fish to jump,
and the sky is big enough for birds to fly."

And a Chan saying:

"Give up recollection! What limit is there to the pure
wind circling the Earth?"

"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."
Ch'ing-yüan Wei-Hsin "Only Faith".

Tang Huyen

[oxtail]

Still trying so hard
to settle all things once and for all?
Moment by moment, always.
Gathering dead leaves is not the good way
to honor the words written on them.
Just be here and now, for a change.

[i2i]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
news:pvmdnZhP6rS5usfJ...@supernews.com...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


since we rely on our human-ness for our
survival, safety and security concerns,
to just be can be the most arduous of
tasks. we aren't necessarily geared for
letting the universe take care of us since
we don't see any actual support in place.
to surrender to the great abundance of
the universe can be quite daunting but
is similar to the taoists talking about
being nurtured by the great mother.

[oxtail]

i2i wrote:

> since we rely on our human-ness for our survival, safety and security
> concerns,
> to just be can be the most arduous of tasks. we aren't necessarily
> geared for letting the universe take care of us since we don't see any
> actual support in place.
> to surrender to the great abundance of the universe can be quite
> daunting but is similar to the taoists talking about being nurtured by
> the great mother.

Yes, it's very difficult but definitely possible
to be happy when you have nothing to do
or even when you cannot do anything.
You might even know how to get there.
I just breathe in, breathe out, and be grateful.
How about you?

[brian mitchell]

A good example of interpretation designed to confirm an already held view. Mind you, if you rely on
a dismally updated translation like the one you quote, you're already at a disadvantage. "Take no
thought for the morrow; let the morrow take thought for the things of itself," is NOT adequately
rendered by "And why are you worried about clothing?" If you can't see any further into the New
Testament than that I suggest you give it up and stick to your Stoics.

[i2i]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:m3dlpn$fjt$1...@dont-email.me...

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

thank you for your gratitude.
I try to accept what gets put
on my plate so that I'm not
trying to tell the universe that
little ol' me knows better than
it does.

[leedillion]

In article <5lnk5a5151961jia7...@4ax.com>,
brai...@fishing.net says...

Hmm. Seems to my way of reading the "lilies of the field" passage in
its full context that Jesus was saying two very important things.

First, that while the need for physical security and comfort (food,
clothing, etc.) is understandable, don't pursue such - rather believe in
the Kingdom of God, and all of this other stuff will be your reward, so
no worry. What the above quote leaves off is the phrase - ?For the
Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows
that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His
righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

Second, the whole sermon ends with the assertion that Jesus speaks with
(divine) authority and not as a mere scribe or repeater of what others
may have said.

In other words, I speak with heavenly authority and I say that you
should believe in me as son of God and all will be provided.

I suppose this could be forced into a stoic or pyrrhonist or quietist
perspective, but traditional Christians would hardly agree. This is a
full-throated patriarch commanding fealty.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/5/2014 2:47 PM, leedillion wrote:

> Hmm. Seems to my way of reading the "lilies of the field" passage in
> its full context that Jesus was saying two very important things.
>
> First, that while the need for physical security and comfort (food,
> clothing, etc.) is understandable, don't pursue such - rather believe in
> the Kingdom of God, and all of this other stuff will be your reward, so
> no worry. What the above quote leaves off is the phrase - ?For the
> Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows
> that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His
> righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
>
> Second, the whole sermon ends with the assertion that Jesus speaks with
> (divine) authority and not as a mere scribe or repeater of what others
> may have said.
>
> In other words, I speak with heavenly authority and I say that you
> should believe in me as son of God and all will be provided.
>
> I suppose this could be forced into a stoic or pyrrhonist or quietist
> perspective, but traditional Christians would hardly agree. This is a
> full-throated patriarch commanding fealty.

This is why I believe that when Jesus said that
famous thing about letting the dead bury the dead,
I take it to be literal: leave the dead to
themselves, "and you go and preach the kingdom of
God". Death belongs to the world, and you go and
preach the kingdom of God, which is not of the
world. This is a full-throated patriarch
commanding fealty. In other words, I speak with

heavenly authority and I say that you should
believe in me as son of God and all will be

provided in heaven. "But seek first His kingdom

and His righteousness, and all these things will

be added to you." Don't bother about the dead,
dears.

Tang Huyen

[brian mitchell]

With regard to texts from earlier times I'm inclined to take the Historicist position, which advises
that they be read through the cultural context of their time and not through one's own. We all,
perforce, use the idiom of our time and tend only to question the assumptions built into language in
areas of significance to us. A disabled person, for instance, may be very conscious of language that
assumes ideals of physicality but not too bothered about assumptions built into language concerning
Man's relationship to animals, unlike an animal rights activist.

It seems possible to me that you, as a modern, atheist, democrat and republican (ie, not a
monarchist) will put more weight onto references to kingship, authority --divine or worldly,
hierarchy, fealty and so on, than was intended by a speaker two thousand years ago when these things
were the very warp and weft of the social fabric. Such a speaker, wanting to convey a message, could
only reach for terms and ideas that had currency for his listeners.

There are then, of course, differences in the dispositions of modern readers. Where you see
expressions of power and coercion, I see expressions of benificence and nurture. You're inclined to
distrust propositions concerning realities beyond appearance, I roll the other way.

The "commanding fealty" point is interesting. There's little doubt that Jesus (if reported even
moderately accurately) was quite an extremist. What I see him as saying is something along the lines
of: "This is no weekend hobby, guys; you have to give this every last thing you've got. If you do,
it will come back tenfold, a hundredfold. If not, well... you might as well go fly a kite."

[Julian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc&app=desktop

[brian mitchell]

Christianity does seem a bit of a syncretist mash-up, I agree. I don't find the historicity issue to
be particularly relevant, though it would be to many, I can see. Also, the question can be applied
across the board...

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/historical-buddha.html

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:
> leedillion wrote:
>> brian wrote:

>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> > Sentiment Bri wrote:
>>> >> Tang Huyen:
>>> >>> i2i:
>>> >
>>> >>>> everyone deserves to be enlightened.

An interesting assertion.

>>> >>>> when god said " I am that I am " he was
>>> >>>> saying * I am aware that I am aware * .

Lotsa waze to view an ox.

>>> >>> I take that answer from the Jewish Yahweh to mean
>>> >>> a refusal to answer, basically leaving the question
>>> >>> and the questioner in place, therefore it is to me
>>> >>> roughly equivalent to the common saying, that where
>>> >>> you are, there you are. Don't bother about
>>> >>> anything, don't examine anything, just stay where
>>> >>> you are. There is no better place.

Lots of ways to draw and quarter an ox.

>>> >> That doesn't seem to keep with the general tone of
>>> >> the whole book.
>>> >
>>> >The whole Book is not consistent.

Taking any scrap of script out of a ture
will be able to support an inconsistent sea.

>>> > There is that famous
>>> >passage:
>>> >
>>> >"And who of you by being worried can add a single hour
>>> >to his life? And why are you worried about clothing?
>>> >Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not
>>> >toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even
>>> >Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of
>>> >these."
>>> >
>>> >This passage is to me roughly equivalent to the common
>>> >saying, that where you are, there you are. Don't
>>> >bother about anything, don't examine anything, just
>>> >stay where you are. There is no better place.

Verily merrily, if life is but a dream,
then, most definitively, be happy.

>>> A good example of interpretation designed to confirm an already held view. Mind you, if you rely on
>>> a dismally updated translation like the one you quote, you're already at a disadvantage. "Take no
>>> thought for the morrow; let the morrow take thought for the things of itself," is NOT adequately
>>> rendered by "And why are you worried about clothing?" If you can't see any further into the New
>>> Testament than that I suggest you give it up and stick to your Stoics.

Of all of what may be eleven, give or take, dimensions,
many may be called, and quite a few entered there in two.

>>Hmm. Seems to my way of reading the "lilies of the field" passage in
>>its full context that Jesus was saying two very important things.
>>
>>First, that while the need for physical security and comfort (food,
>>clothing, etc.) is understandable, don't pursue such - rather believe in
>>the Kingdom of God, and all of this other stuff will be your reward, so
>>no worry. What the above quote leaves off is the phrase - ?For the
>>Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows
>>that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His
>>righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

To feel free to create
one's own and to own one's creation,
if the akasha records all one's deed, then
what one did indeed do, one did indeed do.

Know matter the realms of what mattered.

>>Second, the whole sermon ends with the assertion that Jesus speaks with
>>(divine) authority and not as a mere scribe or repeater of what others
>>may have said.
>>
>>In other words, I speak with heavenly authority and I say that you
>>should believe in me as son of God and all will be provided.

No matter if, given the persecutions, executions,
one is dispatched on any of many occasions.

>>I suppose this could be forced into a stoic or pyrrhonist or quietist
>>perspective, but traditional Christians would hardly agree. This is a
>>full-throated patriarch commanding fealty.
>
>With regard to texts from earlier times I'm inclined to take the Historicist position, which advises
>that they be read through the cultural context of their time and not through one's own. We all,
>perforce, use the idiom of our time and tend only to question the assumptions built into language in
>areas of significance to us. A disabled person, for instance, may be very conscious of language that
>assumes ideals of physicality but not too bothered about assumptions built into language concerning
>Man's relationship to animals, unlike an animal rights activist.
>
>It seems possible to me that you, as a modern, atheist, democrat and republican (ie, not a
>monarchist) will put more weight onto references to kingship, authority --divine or worldly,
>hierarchy, fealty and so on, than was intended by a speaker two thousand years ago when these things
>were the very warp and weft of the social fabric. Such a speaker, wanting to convey a message, could
>only reach for terms and ideas that had currency for his listeners.

An epic, for an age, may tell of a tail tall told.
An Indra, for all one is worth, may pay the price.

>There are then, of course, differences in the dispositions of modern readers. Where you see
>expressions of power and coercion, I see expressions of benificence and nurture. You're inclined to
>distrust propositions concerning realities beyond appearance, I roll the other way.
>
>The "commanding fealty" point is interesting. There's little doubt that Jesus (if reported even
>moderately accurately) was quite an extremist. What I see him as saying is something along the lines
>of: "This is no weekend hobby, guys; you have to give this every last thing you've got. If you do,
>it will come back tenfold, a hundredfold. If not, well... you might as well go fly a kite."

If, after one sheds one's physical body,
there passes, after one's corporeal form passes,
in less than a blink, all of the ink and inklings one built,
spilt, and milked for all they were worth, and consciousness
persists for a spell, in the astral and other unutterable realms,
then, to be what one was, and what one shall be, shall be.

Taking the Book, as an whole, from an honest Abe on thru,
beyond the grave, as factual as much as mythological, God
may be seen in the scenes as well as in the wings, of a sort of
volcano that keeps its promises, and a dove, at the same time.

If Jesus did what he was said to have done,
then it might rightly be said he was the one, the Son,
as much as was Krishna, in a previous age.

For the Isles to have kept still, to renew their strength,
until the Sun never set, and then, it was a best bet,
those who were, then were not, then were, were
beyond their even knowing, pawns in the game.

Those who are unaware of the whole story
are left to wonder of the tales, the legends, myths,
impossible realities beyond their image making ability.

Silly humans.

As if there are not
ages of ages over the ages.

Sew, they may th'ink.
Yet be unable to knit as they pick
at eggs of lice on their fine toothed combs.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

If Odin and Thor were actually kings,
and Zeus and Jupiter deified in much the same
fashion as myth-makers made things out to be,
well then, migrations of people, from Dan on
past the Gates of Pan, may be followed.

- out of the frying

[leedillion]

In article <vg5l5aphf3nb5b897...@4ax.com>,
brai...@fishing.net says...

I think you have weenied him up too much - you have him appear like the
hippie guy playing the guitar on the stairs in Animal House rather than
John Belushi smashing the damn thing.

[Teresita]

Tang Huyen wrote:
> This is why I believe that when Jesus said that
> famous thing about letting the dead bury the dead,
> I take it to be literal: leave the dead to
> themselves

Libs believe the same thing about their trash, which is why their
communes smell like the city dump.

[Julian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[noname]

Fat lot of good that did the residents of Pompeii.

> to just be can be the most arduous of
> tasks. we aren't necessarily geared for
> letting the universe take care of us since
> we don't see any actual support in place.

What might "awakening" be, other than coming into the ability to see
that actual support?

> to surrender to the great abundance of
> the universe can be quite daunting but
> is similar to the taoists talking about
> being nurtured by the great mother.

If you have a duty to check the iron, by all means see whether it is on;
having checked, you have fulfilled the duty, and if it is later found to
be on, it will be found to be on: the miraculous is not restricted to
the realm of the large.

[noname]

You continue to prattle about the necessity for gratitude, compassion,
and happiness; those are frills, strip them away to find the essence
from which they arise.

[noname]

They are the same; one sees, the other does not.

Everything is not futility, it is striving that is futility.

[noname]

It's an esoteric statement by an awakened describing how things work,
and those without understandings in place which allow them to grasp the
esoteric meaning are only able to grasp the exoteric.

[noname]

He was saying that "the kingdom of God" is all around them, they live
within it, but unless they can dedicate themselves to seeing it and
living it, they will be stuck with the kingdoms of Man. Those who
remain stuck with the kingdoms of Man do not even have a place to lay
their heads without the permission of a land lord; those who are able to
live within "the kingdom of God" are provided with food as are the
birds. He was making an esoteric statement, ambiguous, with one meaning
(the "esoteric" meaning) for those able to focus on the "kingdom of God"
and another meaning (the "exoteric" meaning) for those only able to
focus on the things of Man. That was his mode of expression often
enough that those who could only perceive the exoteric meanings of his
comments took him to task under the laws of Man and crucified him for
mouthing off. The concept of a stereogram applies here, the idea that
we live in the intersection of two worlds and choose by focus;
government and nations are as real as we allow ourselves to make them
but they detract from life rather than adding to it.

[oxtail]

There is nothing to be done.
Why are you so obsessed against them?
Do trees hate rain?

[Lee]

My alphabet soup was saying the same thing yesterday.

--
Lee

[brian mitchell]

From the Wikipedia article on "tu quoque":
"[...]To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or
hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented."

I've not attempted to invalidate the position presented. I see the historicity of Jesus, the Buddha,
Lao Tzu, or any other figure, as of small importance compared to the insights presented under their
names.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>Do trees hate rain?

Prolly depends on how gentle, torrential,
and/or thirsty they are at the time.

They might like fog better.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

It may be said and thought that someone who
proclaims that he was born to die to save others,
and goes around challenging the powers that be,
is neither good nor wise, but is, rather, insane.

Delusional with a messianic complex.

On the other hand, if the one making the claims
was/is able to heal sick people, walk on water, and do
other cool stuff, he might be worth a second glance.

Siddhis/siddhas vary.

[brian mitchell]

"{:-])))" wrote:

>brian wrote:

>> . . . I see the historicity of Jesus, the Buddha,

>>Lao Tzu, or any other figure, as of small importance compared to the insights presented under their
>>names.
>
>It may be said and thought that someone who
>proclaims that he was born to die to save others,
>and goes around challenging the powers that be,
>is neither good nor wise, but is, rather, insane.
>
>Delusional with a messianic complex.
>
>On the other hand, if the one making the claims
>was/is able to heal sick people, walk on water, and do
>other cool stuff, he might be worth a second glance.
>
>Siddhis/siddhas vary.

One of the things I found interesting about the Youtube video Julian linked to was how much store
rationalist physicalists set on the body, and how important it is to some of them to disprove the
carnality of Jesus, as though that pulls the whole rug from under him and all religion. You also
seem to be setting some store by that incarnation, with its supposed miraculous powers. If the
Gospels consisted only of accounts of the miracles and had none of the sayings and teachings, would
they be of any interest at all? Wouldn't they just belong with 1001 Arabian Nights?

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

>One of the things I found interesting about the Youtube video Julian linked to was how much store
>rationalist physicalists set on the body, and how important it is to some of them to disprove the
>carnality of Jesus, as though that pulls the whole rug from under him and all religion. You also
>seem to be setting some store by that incarnation, with its supposed miraculous powers.

Yes. The entire Book, if true
in various parts of the whole, then
whatever parts are true may or may not
part with so-called consensus reality.

Given various experiences I have had
in terms of what can't be possible, it is easy
for me to believe in what others think is impossible.

> If the
>Gospels consisted only of accounts of the miracles and had none of the sayings and teachings, would
>they be of any interest at all? Wouldn't they just belong with 1001 Arabian Nights?

If the Gospel miracles were true
and the 1001 tales were simply stories,
that I'd say it's an entirely different playing field.

While it's true that many people are willing to die
for their odd belief in a flag, an idea, etc.,
the fact that something spread
across the entire planet, as it was written,
that it would, a few thousand years ago might be
a self-fulfilling prophecy, akin to Manifest Destiny or
it might be evidence of some other Hand at work.

Evidently, what counts, as evidence, often varies.

There is no doubt that billions of people who claim
to be either physically or spiritually related to an Abe,
in all honesty, did kinda sorta push everyone else
to the far corners, possess the gates of their enemies,
become many nations, a Commonwealth, to say the least,
as it was passed on down the line, to the Sons of Isaac,
Jacob, on thru to Joseph and Ephraim. Who got lost
in the shuffle of time-cards of an age.

Whether those who remain on the thrones still, now,
are able to trace their lineage on back to David
might be a puzzle for genetics to determine.

Stories of a Trojan king, named Brt, and his
grand-daddy Darda, how people sailed and went,
make for a great-grand-daddy of a whopper.

Assuming there was a guy named David,
whose harp was on the flag of Ireland for a spell.
Not to mention the Coronation Stone, now in Scotland,
that Jacob was said to have slept on.

Many legends tie an epic tail and horn of a unicorn
together in a single long drawn out story.

What that has to do with Taoism, I have no idea.
No do I know if the rhino happened to be around
in the daze ofolden when the books got wrot.

Fun stuff tho, at any rate, imo.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/6/2014 9:58 PM, Sentiment Bri wrote:

> {:-]))):

>> How much pain are you interested in?
>> Would you care to be humiliated?

> I know it feels better when words don't sting. I know
> humiliation feels bad.

>> What if your family was involved
>> in the process of your disemboweling?
>>
>> Are you fond of your gonads?

> That would be horrible. However, if my family wanted
> to see me deftly handle criticisms and insults, I would
> be proud to show my skills.

It is hard to believe that a long-term Daoist (or
some such) would say the above:

"How much pain are you interested in?"

"Are you fond of your gonads?"

Doaism is packed solid with the Soft Way
(rou-dao, Japanese Judo), so that by not putting
up resistance, one would inflict no suffering on
oneself. This is especially true with mere words
on the screen. One treats them as flimsy, fluffy,
and not any more solid than a flower in the air,
and they cannot hurt one. On the contrary, they
can hurt one, even harm one, if one invests them
with seriousness and gravity ("gonads"). But the
way one handles them depends on one, not on them.

So, treat mere words on the screen like clouds
passing in the sky, and you'll do fine. Pile up
substance on them, and you'll get hurt, all for
nothing.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/7/2014 4:21 PM, Sentiment Bri wrote:

> What would happen if you feigned seriousness and gravity?

Perfectly possible. It would play into your
opponent's hand, who would then play into
yours. Sun-zi might be amused.

Tang Huyen

[noname]

You know, it isn't as though Jesus had a chronicler who followed him
around with a tape recorder and typed up the day's events every evening.
The New Testament mostly consists of things *remembered* for 40 years
or so before anybody got around to writing them down. How cogent can
one expect old men's reminiscences of a few events of their youth to be?
I don't question Jesus' historicity (or see that it matters one way or
another) but I find it amazing that people read the NT and base their
lives on what they conjecture from the memories of old people who lived
in a different age; I also find it amazing that any two
separately-written accounts agree in even a few specifics, to be that
memorable they must have been incredibly intense experiences.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>You know, it isn't as though Jesus had a chronicler who followed him
>around with a tape recorder and typed up the day's events every evening.
> The New Testament mostly consists of things *remembered* for 40 years
>or so before anybody got around to writing them down. How cogent can
>one expect old men's reminiscences of a few events of their youth to be?

About 40 years ago, in the '70s,
I distinctly recall, going for a walk one day,
it was clear and sunny, without any clouds in sight.
No rain was in the forecast. I had been reading a book,
Earthsea, iirc, wherein weather-working was mentioned.

Having been into yoga and what knots for a spell,
I decided to have a go at a bit of rain.

The newscasters that evening were at a loss
to determine or explain how rain, as if by magic,
appeared in the Valley that day.

Back in the 80s, over 30 years ago, I very distinctly
recall sitting on a friend's couch in his living room talking
with a lady he'd met on bike ride recently. She claimed to be
in touch with some impossible (by consensus values) realms.

Being skeptical of her abilities, she was asked to move something,
the screen door, without touching it. Simply by thought.
To our surprise, the door slowly opened.

We looked at each other, still skeptical, and said, uh, okay.
Let's see you close it. And, slowly, the door closed.
Our chins dropped a bit as we looked at each other.
There was no wind nor breeze.

There was very little to say about it.
And yet, such events tend to be able to be recalled
because they are not-normal, are paranormal, etc.

> I don't question Jesus' historicity (or see that it matters one way or
>another) but I find it amazing that people read the NT and base their
>lives on what they conjecture from the memories of old people who lived
>in a different age;

Some people believe after they see stuff.
Some need to experience it for themselves.
Some feel a tug, at their chest pieces of peace
levels and level off into a different realm.

> I also find it amazing that any two
>separately-written accounts agree in even a few specifics, to be that
>memorable they must have been incredibly intense experiences.

I recall moving a small piece of wood in a fire once.
The thought occurred to me that it was possible to levitate it.
It was at a point of leverage. Without any exertion, it was willed
to lever up. Then, back down again. It was not intense
but was so simple, easier than lifiting my arm.

I went, huh, and then to bed.
To sleep. Perhaps to dream.

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:
> Sentiment Bri wrote:
>> {:-]))):
>
>>> How much pain are you interested in?
>>> Would you care to be humiliated?
>
>> I know it feels better when words don't sting. I know
>> humiliation feels bad.

Once up
on a recent time, Umm told a few jokes.

The first one, I thought was funny.
The second, I didn't find very funny.

Umm immediately apologized.

I didn't feel nor desire any need for him to.
But that was, I'd suppose, his gentle nature.

What his jokes did for me was to bring a mirror
to me to see how and why I responded.

I figured the reason the second wasn't funny
arose out of some hypocrisy in me.

Why something makes me, or anyone, laugh
might be the degree of how one agrees
with the situation presented.

Being able to relate to an over-the-top
strike of the old cue-b'all.

>>> What if your family was involved
>>> in the process of your disemboweling?
>>>
>>> Are you fond of your gonads?
>
>> That would be horrible.

Point being, that if Sentiment Bri wanted
to engage in some perverse comedy jam-up,
there may exist buttons of his which could be
pressed, pushed, poked, prodded and stuck
up his knows with a fire hose.

>> However, if my family wanted
>> to see me deftly handle criticisms and insults, I would
>> be proud to show my skills.
>
>It is hard to believe that a long-term Daoist (or
>some such) would say the above:
>
>"How much pain are you interested in?"
>
>"Are you fond of your gonads?"

Aye, like to draw distinct-
ions at times can be a distinctly non-Taoist way
to be going a bout at a match in a three ring
under the really big top spinning umbrella.

>Doaism is packed solid with the Soft Way
>(rou-dao, Japanese Judo), so that by not putting
>up resistance, one would inflict no suffering on
>oneself. This is especially true with mere words
>on the screen. One treats them as flimsy, fluffy,
>and not any more solid than a flower in the air,
>and they cannot hurt one. On the contrary, they
>can hurt one, even harm one, if one invests them
>with seriousness and gravity ("gonads"). But the
>way one handles them depends on one, not on them.
>
>So, treat mere words on the screen like clouds
>passing in the sky, and you'll do fine. Pile up
>substance on them, and you'll get hurt, all for
>nothing.

At times I have noted a way
in which there are no Real Taoists here.

Real Taoists tend to be doing Real Taoists things,
naturally, without really doing them to speak of.

In Taoist lore may be found what were known
as knack-masters. In circus tents there are bells of
several and sounds which sound like peanuts being
thrown and s'hells falling in the gallery saw dust.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/8/2014 11:27 AM, Sentiment Bri wrote:

> {:-]))):

>> Point being, that if Sentiment Bri wanted
>> to engage in some perverse comedy jam-up,
>> there may exist buttons of his which could be
>> pressed, pushed, poked, prodded and stuck
>> up his knows with a fire hose.

> The buttons, aka "oozing self", would be visible
> to others but not to me and hence others could
> push, poke, and prod.
>
> If I could see them then I could gather them up
> and seal the ooze. A good anti-septic is mental
> culture, which could, in theory, stow them safely
> (acceptance in the extreme). These buttons
> could be acting on me without my knowledge even
> when people aren't pressing them. So, if
> someone presses them, I can better see them and
> apply mental culture to them.
>
> Yes, it could get ugly and go horribly wrong.
> I wouldn't want my family or friends to see
> this, not so much for my sake, but for their
> sake.
>
> Aside from the potential consequences, the
> above is the general meaning of "Blast away at
> me, dear, and I'll thank you for it."
>
> A person who claims advanced skill in mental
> culture will have to be mettle tested, or
> rather, should be mettle tested. If they can't
> handle it and can't apply this simple technique
> (insight and acceptance) then for their sake
> and others they should drop everything they
> think they know and go back to basics.

Thank you, Brian (from Canada), you are such a
good stooge. You have written above what I have
repeated for years, though some people still
find it weird and repugnant.

<<A person who claims advanced skill in mental
culture will have to be mettle tested, or
rather, should be mettle tested. If they can't
handle it and can't apply this simple technique
(insight and acceptance) then for their sake
and others they should drop everything they
think they know and go back to basics.>>

It is basic Daoism and Buddhism, especially as
we are dealing only with mere words on the
screen, and everybody is protected by
asynchronicity.

Tang Huyen

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:

>Thank you, Brian (from Canada), you are such a
>good stooge. You have written above what I have
>repeated for years, though some people still
>find it weird and repugnant.
>
><<A person who claims advanced skill in mental
>culture will have to be mettle tested, or
>rather, should be mettle tested. If they can't
>handle it and can't apply this simple technique
>(insight and acceptance) then for their sake
>and others they should drop everything they
>think they know and go back to basics.>>
>
>It is basic Daoism and Buddhism, especially as
>we are dealing only with mere words on the
>screen, and everybody is protected by
>asynchronicity.

I find it odd that the FBI, three letters,
could trigger what appears to be a fear,
or some other emotional response
as if there were things to hide.

Then again, perhaps Tang never pretended
to be practicing nor to have mastered
any sorts of mental culture.

If I get it aright, for an awakened/enlightened
one who was familiar with mental culture, the FBI
could poke and prod all it cared to.

Not only that, one's childhood, one's parents,
one's exerperiences would not be felt to be any
sort of secret to be kept out of sight.

When one is transparent
nothing sticks on nor beneath the skin.

There are no bones to break about
mere words on a screen.

[oxtail]

Don't be silly.
Words are the most dangerous weapon we have.
Beware of hate-mongering words!

[{:-])))]

It was a vain attempt at facetious irony.

>Words are the most dangerous weapon we have.
>Beware of hate-mongering words!

Self-hate and self-loathing were Tang's words.
I'd thrown in pedophilia, sadism and batches of other
utterances that crossed my mind at various times
in attempting to discern the spirits at play.

Seriously.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/9/2014 8:58 AM, Teresita wrote:

> {:-]))):

>> One guy here didn't like that.
>> At first, he was nice. Then he escalated his responses
>> to include the worst sorts of unkind tactics.

> Some of us found his tactics to be as substance-less as
> the shadow from the moon.

From some quarters, I get the feeling that the goal
in mental culture is to be as substance-less as the
shadow from the moon. The less the substance the
better. In disregard to specifics.

On the Buddhist boards, Lee Dillion used to call
the insults from Pete/cupcake "content-free".
Again, from some quarters, I get the feeling that
the goal in mental culture is to be as content-free
as the shadow from the moon. Etc.

I give no guarantee for any of the above, express
or implied. It is substance-less and content-free.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/8/2014 2:19 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

> Umm sets out to discomfort. He knows full well the
> effects his jibes have because he has repeated
> the performance a few times now. He certainly
> discomforted Tang, as we saw by the response. In
> fact, on his every appearance to date he has gone
> straight for Tang, which might well be seen as a
> compliment. This is not to say that Umm is pure
> troll, but he certainly knows what he is doing and
> savours the effects. He does straightforwardly say
> that he comes here to have fun. There isn't much
> difference that I can see between he and Tang
> regarding confidence in, and satisfaction with,
> their respective outlooks.

I am grateful to both Ummie and you (Brian from
the UK) dears for showing me my weak points.
Please keep piling on, I crave it. The more the
merrier, and I know that you are a
self-respecting gentleman, so you don't need
the following reserve, but I would like to
repeat that I absolve people who are kind enough
to point out my faults and errors to me of all
moral and legal responsibility so long as they
keep everything to mere words on the screen and
onboard. If I had money I would hire you to
follow me around and point out my faults and
errors to me, the rest of the time it would be
just me.

Tang Huyen

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:
> Teresita wrote:
>> {:-]))):
>
>>> One guy here didn't like that.
>>> At first, he was nice. Then he escalated his responses
>>> to include the worst sorts of unkind tactics.
>
>> Some of us found his tactics to be as substance-less as
>> the shadow from the moon.
>
> From some quarters, I get the feeling that the goal
>in mental culture is to be as substance-less as the
>shadow from the moon. The less the substance the
>better. In disregard to specifics.

If bliss/samadhi is half the story,
the more the happier one's petri dish mites be.

Less and less has been said to weigh
a ticket for the wu-wei train of thoughts.

>On the Buddhist boards, Lee Dillion used to call
>the insults from Pete/cupcake "content-free".
>Again, from some quarters, I get the feeling that
>the goal in mental culture is to be as content-free
>as the shadow from the moon. Etc.

As I am mindful of many of my responses and inquests,
the parent, teacher, bully, asshole, Christian, Taoist,
Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and utter nonsense
within me and sum of m'eye words go unkneaded.

>I give no guarantee for any of the above, express
>or implied. It is substance-less and content-free.

I once was concerned about being free.
The acting Plant Manager assured me I was.

I was free to report to work on MLK's birthday
and free to suffer the consequences if I didn't.

AWOL might be seen as mere letters on paper.

Same with a report to the FBI.

No substance
nor content to the contenders of any forms
involved, evolved, uninvolved nor revolving
round on any sort of merry-go.

One time a Cat got the tongue of a shadao.

[oxtail]

You might need a more nurturing environment.
How about a book reading club?
Not that I'm interested in one.
Good luck.

[{:-])))]

Tang requested to:

> keep everything to mere words
>on the screen and onboard.

Why pretend that Usenet is less real
than any other form of reality?

What would the FBI think?

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/9/2014 12:42 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

> These discussions about insult, etc, tend to be one-sided,
> only considering the possible effect on the insultee,
> almost never considering the likely effect on the insulter.
> What greater mark of pride than to consider oneself and
> one's actions to be the justified instrument of karma, or
> of The Way cuffing an errant cub back into line?

Brian dear, the likely effect on the insulter was often
pointed out by me, when I said (truckloads of times)
that the inveterate insulters on the Buddhist boards,
like Evelyn, Jigme and Fu wrecked themselves by their
own anger and paranoia. I have also cautioned Niunian
against his aggressive speech, as it could lead to his
own harm, in closed circle, for free and unasked.

Where have you been? In Mars?

Tang Huyen

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:

> the likely effect on the insulter was often
>pointed out by me, when I said (truckloads of times)
>that the inveterate insulters on the Buddhist boards,
>like Evelyn, Jigme and Fu wrecked themselves by their
>own anger and paranoia.

I'd heard that Fu used to do you
as it appeared to me you were doing Umm.

That Fu would play Zen-games of some strange form
by teasing you in various ways, to get your goat.
To test your mettle. Or whatever it's called.

To dish out a ration of mere words on a
screen in a newsgroup.

No idea how true the rumor was.

Who did Evelyn and Jigme go around insulting?
Was it for no reason? To enlighten others?

To test the insultee's mettle or cuz they were
just being assholes in general?

> I have also cautioned Niunian
>against his aggressive speech, as it could lead to his
>own harm, in closed circle, for free and unasked.
>
>Where have you been? In Mars?

I've seen Niunian be a bit odd in ways.
Maybe more than a bit at times.

I don't recall him trolling for flames
nor insulting others in newsgroups. As near
as I can tell, he hates some Japanese and Tibetan
assorted things. And refuses to let that hate go.
I can understand some of why, but not all of it.

None of any of all the above is my business.
Not sure what it has to do with Taoism either.

File under: Usenet gossip.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/10/2014 8:53 AM, {:-]))) wrote:

> Who are these, "they"
> you are manifesting
> in your mind?

Who is this, "Tang" that
you are manifesting
in your mind, to offend
you with his bullying
and to invoke in you child abuse
and pedophilia (multiple times)?
What are *you* manifesting by
way of him? Is he a blank
screen of projection for you and
your inner demons? Does he get you
to pill your guts, boom,
just like that?

Do you command any self-reflection?
Do you do any navel-gazing?

Tang Huyen

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> Who are these, "they"
>> you are manifesting
>> in your mind?
>
>Who is this, "Tang" that
>you are manifesting
>in your mind,

Hang on. I gotta make a beer run.
My boss gave me permission.

Eye shall return within
a parsec.

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> Who are these, "they"
>> you are manifesting
>> in your mind?
>
>Who is this, "Tang" that
>you are manifesting
>in your mind,

Having returned, now,
this, "Tang" fellow is a virtual
character to be found in Usenet.

He's a real character
sew two speak.

It's bin said on the Buddhist boards
he has involved himself all too various
degrees of certitude if not attitude
if not altitude as he swooped if not
sank as low as bilge water may go.

> to offend
>you with his bullying
>and to invoke in you child abuse
>and pedophilia (multiple times)?

He seems to enjoy messing
if not screwing with people's heads.

His heart,
he appears to be unable
to know to what depths it may sink
nor to have sunk.

To say he has off-ended me on
occasion mites be to put it m'ore harsh
than stems and seeds have gone before.

Neigh the white-horse who rode in
on top of all t'hats was knot.

Naturally, my unnatural perceptions
slash projections, are entirely my own

mere words on a screen.

>What are *you* manifesting by
>way of him?

A great number of characters, their traits,
their spirits, to fathom and mark twain twine
of heart-strings strung of cat's guts and tongues
to speak of as well as in at times within times
sailing up in the head of steam shipping
lanes and lines of the big muddy.

>Is he a blank
>screen of projection for you and
>your inner demons?

Berry mulch sew!

>Does he get you
>to pill your guts, boom,
>just like that?

He might be a pill to swallow for sum.
To make them ill, full of self-loathing and self-
hatred, unto death, if the tale of the tail be true.

There is no spoon.

>Do you command any self-reflection?
>Do you do any navel-gazing?

Within me, recently, I have seen the Taoist,
the skeptic, the Christian, Buddhist, Jain and Jew,
the parent, the teacher, and none of that's new.

To screw with the minds however, of the young
at heart, the spiritual new-borns, that one I had
never in my life seen emerge from within me.

Not in any sort of evil fashion.

Tis a shame in many ways, to draw lines, how-
ever arbitrary they may be in all their might.

At what age, one could ask oneself, is it okay?

If someone, say an Umm sort, were to arrive
on the Buddhist boards, where, presumably, much
testing of mettle takes place, and that one Umm sort
was, oh, say, 16, or 12, or 5 years of age,
would it be okay to put the screw
to his head, for your fun?

Yesterday I caught myself
messing with the mind of a young man.
I told myself, "Don't do that" and recalled
how spirits at times cry out for deliverance.

Ministries vary.

[noname]

Don't believe everything you read in the funny-papers.

There *is* a spoon, and it is as real as the red truck when it is poked
in your eye.

You may think that the spoon is only an idea of how the elemental
particles are arranged within a certain region of space, but what
stereogramic images you perceive are of no concern to the elemental
particles involved in the spoon dance. It is the steps that make the
dance real; paths are made by walking on them, not by pondering the idea
of whether they exist if they have not yet been walked upon.

Reality is where people die, and solipsism is for sissies who run from
death by attempting not to live.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> I had written:

>
>> There is no spoon.
>
>Don't believe everything you read in the funny-papers.

Some may say
the funny-papers are mere words
printed on pulp. Fluffy things.

It could be said,
there are no, "mere words on a screen"
to be spoon fed to children.

>There *is* a spoon, and it is as real as the red truck when it is poked
>in your eye.

A sharp word may stick in the eye.
Poke around enough, and a stick may be found.
Some may say, there is not stick.
And there is no eye.

>You may think that the spoon is only an idea of how the elemental
>particles are arranged within a certain region of space, but what
>stereogramic images you perceive are of no concern to the elemental
>particles involved in the spoon dance. It is the steps that make the
>dance real; paths are made by walking on them, not by pondering the idea
>of whether they exist if they have not yet been walked upon.
>
>Reality is where people die, and solipsism is for sissies who run from
>death by attempting not to live.

Words on a screen are screened
by the eyes into which they enter.

[noname]

On 11/11/2014 05:21 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> Words on a screen are screened
> by the eyes into which they enter.

And transmuted to meet the desires and expectations of the reader.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/16/2014 12:18 PM, linuxgal wrote:

> kamerm:

>> in Daoism, the Buddhist Noble Truth of suffering,
>> is reduced to acepting that having a body means misfortune,
>> and willingly accepting the consequent disgrace(s)

> And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
> of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.

I disagree with linuxgal.

有恆者，人舍之，天助之。人之所舍，謂之天民；天之所助，
謂之天子。

<<When he is thus constant in himself, (what is merely)
the human element will leave him, but Heaven will help
him. Those whom their human element has left we call the
people of Heaven. Those whom Heaven helps we call the
Sons of Heaven.>>

<http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/Dao/zhuangzi6.7.html>

<<Yan Hui asked Zhongni, saying, 'When the mother of
Meng-sun Cai died, in all his wailing for her he did not
shed a tear; in the core of his heart he felt no distress;
during all the mourning rites, he exhibited no sorrow.
Without these three things, he (was considered to have)
discharged his mourning well; is it that in the state of
Lu one who has not the reality may yet get the reputation
of having it? I think the matter very strange.'
Zhongni said, 'That Meng-sun carried out (his views) to
the utmost. He was advanced in knowledge; but (in this
case) it was not possible for him to appear to be
negligent (in his ceremonial observances)', but he
succeeded in being really so to himself. Meng-sun does
not know (bu zhi 不知) either what purposes life serves,
or what death serves; he does not know which should be
first sought, and which last.>>

工倕旋而蓋規矩，指與物化，而不以心稽，故其靈臺一而不桎。忘足，
履之適也；忘要，帶之適也；

"Artisan Ch'ui could draw as true as a compass or a T
square because his fingers changed along with things
and he didn't let his mind get in the way. Therefore
his Spirit Tower (靈臺 ling fu) remained unified and
unobstructed. You forget your feet when the shoes are
comfortable. You forget your waist when the belt is
comfortable. Understanding forgets right and wrong
(知忘是非) when the mind is comfortable. There is no
change in what is inside, no following what is
outside, when the adjustment to events is comfortable.
You begin with what is comfortable and never
experience what is uncomfortable when you know the
comfort of forgetting what is comfortable." Watson.

而不以心稽 er bu yi xin ji "but he did not take mind as
model" (Watson: he didn't let his mind get in the way).

Not to know (bu zhi 不知) is the fundamental condition,
and to know is patchy at best. When one does not know,
one leaves the human realm and attains to heaven, even
if one still lives with a body. But one no longer
identifies with anything, not one's body and not one's
mind. One takes no model (ji 稽) from anything, be it
body or mind. Then, even the Way (Dao 道) is not model,
even the Law (Dharma) is not model.

That is liberation, to me.

Tang Huyen

[linuxgal]

Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 12:18 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> kamerm:
>
>>> in Daoism, the Buddhist Noble Truth of suffering,
>>> is reduced to acepting that having a body means misfortune,
>>> and willingly accepting the consequent disgrace(s)
>
>> And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>> of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.
>
> I disagree with linuxgal.

All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.
When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.

[kamerm]

Tang Huyen wrote:
...
> Not to know (bu zhi ??) is the fundamental condition,

> and to know is patchy at best. When one does not know,
> one leaves the human realm and attains to heaven, even
> if one still lives with a body. But one no longer
> identifies with anything, not one's body and not one's

> mind. One takes no model (ji ?) from anything, be it
> body or mind. Then, even the Way (Dao ?) is not model,

> even the Law (Dharma) is not model.
>
> That is liberation, to me.
>
> Tang Huyen

hoping your times of liberation, expand

-k

[noname]

On 11/16/2014 10:40 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 12:18 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> kamerm:
>
>>> in Daoism, the Buddhist Noble Truth of suffering,
>>> is reduced to acepting that having a body means misfortune,
>>> and willingly accepting the consequent disgrace(s)
>
>> And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>> of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.
>
> I disagree with linuxgal.

That much is fine, I do not agree with her statement either, at least
not as it was written.

However, you (Tang) seem to habitually quote authorities rather than
simply putting forth your view; if you understand then you do not need
to rely on authorities, and if you do not understand you cannot be
counted on to quote relevant authorities, therefore perhaps you might
wish to consider dropping the unnecessary baggage and simply coming to
the point.

You seem stuck on not-knowing; some things are known and others are
unknown, yet still others are unknowable.

> When one does not know,
> one leaves the human realm and attains to heaven, even
> if one still lives with a body.

You refer to attaining to heaven, but do you know what that means? Can
you explain or describe how "heaven" helps its "sons"?

> But one no longer
> identifies with anything, not one's body and not one's
> mind.

I suppose there might be meanings for "identifies with" that might make
that true, but they seem in the minority; the concept of identifying
with something is not relevant to those sons of heaven referred to by Zz
above.

> One takes no model (ji 稽) from anything, be it
> body or mind. Then, even the Way (Dao 道) is not model,
> even the Law (Dharma) is not model.

One needs no model while dealing with the real thing, but if the real
thing is to be discussed rather than experienced, then a model can at
least help to point.

> That is liberation, to me.
>
> Tang Huyen

Sounds unclear to me, in fact it sounds like you make no distinction
between the liberation which allows awakening to occur, and the
awakening itself, even though sons of heaven are either awakened or they
are heaven's ignorant bastard offspring.


--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:

> linuxgal wrote:
>
>
>> And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>> of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.
>
>I disagree with linuxgal.

Elementary Daoism is, well, elementary.

She teaches a course in advanced Daoism.

I'm not sure what her official title is.

She is a professor of sorts.

In her book,
advanced Daoism for the uninitiated,
she expounds upon her thesis.

Not ever having read her book, naturally,
I can only speculate on her words.

With the English language for a second
there might be some confusion.

[Teresita]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Tang wrote:
>> >linuxgal wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>> >>And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>>> >>of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.
>> >
>> >I disagree with linuxgal.
> Elementary Daoism is, well, elementary.
>
> She teaches a course in advanced Daoism.
>
> I'm not sure what her official title is.
>
> She is a professor of sorts.
>
> In her book,
> advanced Daoism for the uninitiated,
> she expounds upon her thesis.

My thesis is that mind-body dualism is a western conceit, and is not
embraced by daojia.

[kamerm]

you can walk both roads at once

-k

[{:-])))]

That sounds all very wellish and good-like.
And, mine eyes dew agree, cliffs are note worthy.

A problematical may arise in terms.

How is it, in other words, there can be
a you and a body that one is
without there being
already three?

At least, I think Zz said it as such.

Watson said he said:

http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2

"Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten
thousand things are one with me.

We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!"

How ever-true that may be,
song-birds sing and writers write.
Those who dance among the words
may know a step, a jig, and when up is.

Those who know
sum Ting of the above
mighty oak mites knot say
with in their heart of hearts.

Puzzle makers puzzle over,
and over, and under beneath
which there is nothing.

[Teresita]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Teresita wrote:
>> >{:-]))) wrote:
>>> >>Tang wrote:
>>>>> >>> >linuxgal wrote:
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>> >>>> >>And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>>>>>>> >>>> >>of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >I disagree with linuxgal.
>>> >>Elementary Daoism is, well, elementary.
>>> >>
>>> >>She teaches a course in advanced Daoism.
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm not sure what her official title is.
>>> >>
>>> >>She is a professor of sorts.
>>> >>
>>> >>In her book,
>>> >>advanced Daoism for the uninitiated,
>>> >>she expounds upon her thesis.
>> >
>> >My thesis is that mind-body dualism is a western conceit, and is not
>> >embraced by daojia.
> That sounds all very wellish and good-like.
> And, mine eyes dew agree, cliffs are note worthy.
>
> A problematical may arise in terms.
>
> How is it, in other words, there can be
> a you and a body that one is
> without there being
> already three?

A cite:

The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) is tiny and only
has 302 neurons. These have been completely mapped, and one of the
founders of the OpenWorm project, Timothy Busbice, has taken the
connectome and implemented an object oriented neuron program. The
neurons communicate by sending UDP packets across the network. The
software works with sensors and effectors provided by a simple LEGO
robot. The sensors are sampled every 100ms. For example, the sonar
sensor on the robot is wired as the worm's nose. If anything comes
within 20cm of the 'nose' then UDP packets are sent to the sensory
neurons in the network. The motor neurons are wired up to the left and
right motors of the robot. It is claimed that the robot behaved in ways
that are similar to observed C. elegans. Stimulation of the nose stopped
forward motion. Touching the anterior and posterior touch sensors made
the robot move forward and back accordingly. Stimulating the food sensor
made the robot move forward. The key point is that there was no
programming or learning involved to create the behaviors. The connectome
of the worm was mapped and implemented as a software system and the
behaviors emerge. Is the robot a C. elegans in a different body or is it
something quite new? Is it alive? These are questions for philosophers,
but it does suggest that the ghost in the machine is just the machine.

[Teresita]

67:

Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.

Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.

Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.

[kamerm]

:-)

in case i'm being thick -
did you publish a book or blog?
have taken j as joshing re. your post(s) as tome

-k

[Teresita]

kamerm wrote:
> Teresita wrote:

>> >kamerm wrote:
>>> >>you can walk both roads at once
>> >
>> >67:
>> >
>> >Simple in actions and in thoughts,
>> >you return to the source of being.
>> >
>> >Patient with both friends and enemies,
>> >you accord with the way things are.
>> >
>> >Compassionate toward yourself,
>> >you reconcile all beings in the world.
>
> :-)
>
> in case i'm being thick -
> did you publish a book or blog?
> have taken j as joshing re. your post(s) as tome

I have a blog at http://badinage1.wordpress.com but it's on a kind of
hiatus for another week or so. But there is much the chew on, there.

[{:-])))]

Teresita wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:

I'm perfectly willing and happy to grant
a meaning of the word, life, as well as
intelligent, and even, consciousness,
to machines of all sorts of elements.

Organic constituents are no more
than inorganic elements with CHON
or CHONPS mixed in a soup.

The ghost of the creators of the robot
may be found among the p'art-workings.

The consciousness which devises
experiments which are in turn seen as being
without the consciousness which devised them
might be a funny sort of consciousness.

Mechanistic models of the non-dual
are one step removed from that
of which they are a model.

There in may be found two-ness
to say the least-ness also.

A totally and completely thorough-going
non-dual professor would not profess.

For to whom would that one?

Would not there be no bodies?

No, "others"
to whom the one would speak?

Hence it may be said
that those who know of this
dew knot speak of that.

The coffee grounds of perception mites
be found among the rounds and rounds
of consciousness on a merry go.

As far as emergences are.

The view from the bottoms up
cud be a byte m'ore cheerful than
those from the middles out.

At the top of the heap,
looking down on all the utters
of nonsense and wear widths at length,
God, assuming there is One, smiles.

For if there shall be nothing
when the Red Giant swallows Earth whole,
then it were, as it were, a mere dream
akin to words on a screen after all.

And, naturally, there is nothing
wrong in particular with such an hat.

If th'at is the pov of one.
Who is a non-duelist.

[Teresita]

{:-]))) wrote:
> I'm perfectly willing and happy to grant
> a meaning of the word, life, as well as
> intelligent, and even, consciousness,
> to machines of all sorts of elements.
>
> Organic constituents are no more
> than inorganic elements with CHON
> or CHONPS mixed in a soup.

It is often said that DNA is the essential molecule of life, but I
cannot think of a more non-living molecule than DNA. The stuff is
securely packed away in chromosomes, in coils of coils of coils, which
once in a while are carefully unpacked like your doughboy grandpa's
bayonet, copied off to eager messenger RNA, then packed away once again.
And this is how I would view the ghost that allegedly animates the
human body in a dualist's scheme, while the "mere" machinery of the
cells and organs get on with the real activity of living.

[kamerm]

Thanks

-k

[noname]

That isn't precisely what you said.

What you refer to as "mind-body dualism" is the view philosophical
materialists love to hate, the idea of a "soul" being somehow the owner
of a body, or vice versa. I don't know if it's a purely western concept
or not, but I agree it is not part of "daojia".

What the TTC does go out of its way to announce in the very first verse
is the duality of Manifestation and Mystery and how being owned by
desire limits one to seeing the manifestation (eg, philosophical
materialism) but being free of desire one can see the mystery (which
turns out to be a reference to a form of Platonic Realism).

What "daojia" puts forth is not "mind-body dualism" but mind-body unity,
the idea that the body is a manifestation of that which resides in mystery.

So back to your initial comment and the reason I responded, you said:

>>>> >>And in advanced Daoism, you unlearn the idea
>>>> >>of "having a body" and accept that you are a body.

Neither is the case. You do not have a body. You are not a body.

You are that which manifests your body.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[liaM]

On 11/18/2014 3:52 AM, Teresita wrote:

> A cite:
>
> The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) is tiny and only
> has 302 neurons. These have been completely mapped, and one of the
> founders of the OpenWorm project, Timothy Busbice, has taken the
> connectome and implemented an object oriented neuron program. The
> neurons communicate by sending UDP packets across the network. The
> software works with sensors and effectors provided by a simple LEGO
> robot. The sensors are sampled every 100ms. For example, the sonar
> sensor on the robot is wired as the worm's nose. If anything comes
> within 20cm of the 'nose' then UDP packets are sent to the sensory
> neurons in the network. The motor neurons are wired up to the left and
> right motors of the robot. It is claimed that the robot behaved in ways
> that are similar to observed C. elegans. Stimulation of the nose stopped
> forward motion. Touching the anterior and posterior touch sensors made
> the robot move forward and back accordingly. Stimulating the food sensor
> made the robot move forward. The key point is that there was no
> programming or learning involved to create the behaviors. The connectome
> of the worm was mapped and implemented as a software system and the
> behaviors emerge. Is the robot a C. elegans in a different body or is it
> something quite new? Is it alive? These are questions for philosophers,
> but it does suggest that the ghost in the machine is just the machine.

Nice !

The decription skirts a fundamental part of the functioning of this
brain, the environment with which it reacts, and that points to a
fundamental difference between an organic robot, and one that's made up
entirely of logic gates. The environment provides a chaotic canvas
through which the robot can learn. As an aside, it would be interesting
to immerse the robot in an environment with 100% stochasticity, i.e.
unchanging and predictable. See what happens (that's predictable).
And then, build into the robot a chaotic source, i.e. a back-biased
Zener diode providing unpredictable quantums to the robot brain,
just to see what it does inside a predictable environment.

No wonder artists feel they have to explode the environment in which
they find themselves. Is it because they are more Zener than non-artists?

[liaM]

On 11/18/2014 3:52 AM, Teresita wrote:

> A cite:
>
> The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) is tiny and only
> has 302 neurons. These have been completely mapped, and one of the
> founders of the OpenWorm project, Timothy Busbice, has taken the
> connectome and implemented an object oriented neuron program. The
> neurons communicate by sending UDP packets across the network. The
> software works with sensors and effectors provided by a simple LEGO
> robot. The sensors are sampled every 100ms. For example, the sonar
> sensor on the robot is wired as the worm's nose. If anything comes
> within 20cm of the 'nose' then UDP packets are sent to the sensory
> neurons in the network. The motor neurons are wired up to the left and
> right motors of the robot. It is claimed that the robot behaved in ways
> that are similar to observed C. elegans. Stimulation of the nose stopped
> forward motion. Touching the anterior and posterior touch sensors made
> the robot move forward and back accordingly. Stimulating the food sensor
> made the robot move forward. The key point is that there was no
> programming or learning involved to create the behaviors. The connectome
> of the worm was mapped and implemented as a software system and the
> behaviors emerge. Is the robot a C. elegans in a different body or is it
> something quite new? Is it alive? These are questions for philosophers,
> but it does suggest that the ghost in the machine is just the machine.

Nice !

But the decription skirts a fundamental part of the functioning of this
brain, the environment with which it interracts. The environment
provides a chaotic canvas through which the robot moves. It would be
interesting to immerse the robot in an unchanging and predictable
environment. Whatever path it took would invariably repeat itself ad
infinitum. But then, build into the robot a chaotic source, i.e. a

back-biased Zener diode providing unpredictable quantums to the robot
brain, just to see what it does inside a predictable environment.

The result might still be boring, but at least it wouldn't always repeat.

No wonder artists feel they have to explode the environments that bore
them. Is it because they are more Zener than non-artists?

[Teresita]

liaM wrote:
>
> No wonder artists feel they have to explode the environments that bore
> them. Is it because they are more Zener than non-artists?

I was a fan of a television show in the 90s called Zener Warrior Princess.

[Teresita]

noname wrote:
> What "daojia" puts forth is not "mind-body dualism" but mind-body unity,
> the idea that the body is a manifestation of that which resides in mystery.

But that takes us back to dualism once again, this time introducing
Plato's ideal forms. It's like saying an everyday chair is a
manifestation of an ideal chair which itself resides in an abstract
space somewhere. Lao Tzu would say, naw, a chair speaks for itself. In
fact, after walking fifty li over that mountain pass, he'd say that
chair was talking to him right now.

[kamerm]

not necessarily

consider a rumor passing from ear to mouth to ear:
at each moment only a few people are bodying it forth.
yet it's multiplying, adapting, and evolving with every transmission.
is the rumor a given utterance/hearing/appreciation
or is it the entire rippling and its reflections?

-k

[oxtail]

Your Idealism is not it either.
There is a yin-yang dualism in Daoism.
Of course, there is that mysterious One
that transcends all kinds of dualisms.
Still no Daoist would say "you do not have a body."
Feel free to eat the cake and have it too. ;)

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> noname wrote:
>
>>
>> You are that which manifests your body.
>
>Your Idealism is not it either.

I thought he said something about Realism.
It differs from what you appear to refer to.

>There is a yin-yang dualism in Daoism.
>Of course, there is that mysterious One
>that transcends all kinds of dualisms.
>Still no Daoist would say "you do not have a body."

The one known as noname is not a Daoist.

>Feel free to eat the cake and have it too. ;)

While noname follows Dao, his ism,
if it may be called that, is not necessarily Daoism.

He feels free to say as he says
and this place is the one nearest to him
he has found in which he is able to say it
where it may be of some help to those
who are interested in it.

Whatever he says, is it.
In his paradigm.

That goes without saying.
And yet, at times it's refreshing to say it.

Memory may need that sort of process,
to unlearn and reboot, etc.

What he says helps me to understand him.
If nothing else along the Way.

[Teresita]

kamerm wrote:
> consider a rumor passing from ear to mouth to ear:
> at each moment only a few people are bodying it forth.
> yet it's multiplying, adapting, and evolving with every transmission.
> is the rumor a given utterance/hearing/appreciation
> or is it the entire rippling and its reflections?

Suppose the rumor is that Ulysses S. Grant has died. The multiplying
rumors are poor copies of the information of his demise. But the actual
information of his demise is encoded in his dead cadaver.

[kamerm]

it's not what the rumor's about -
it's the rumor as a process

-k

[noname]

On 11/18/2014 05:02 AM, Teresita wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> What "daojia" puts forth is not "mind-body dualism" but mind-body unity,
>> the idea that the body is a manifestation of that which resides in
>> mystery.
>
> But that takes us back to dualism once again, this time introducing
> Plato's ideal forms. It's like saying an everyday chair is a
> manifestation of an ideal chair which itself resides in an abstract
> space somewhere.

A chair and the shadow it casts are not two, they are one.

[noname]

Your intellectualism can take you no further than the state of perfect
intellectualism.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[harry carrey]

jump!

[kamerm]

a rumor and one of its whispers are not two

-k

[{:-])))]

From the pov of various sorts, Being
does not actually exist, as only beings do.

By that sort of a sortation process, forests
don't really exist, only trees do.

And, people don't either, only cells do.

If people and forests exist as forms
of super-organisms, then it may be said
cities and states and nations are not mere
myths, nor are super-organisms such as
Christianity or Islam, as they grow
and spread their wings over
a planet called Earth.

The power of the myth of Tao
might not be the same as that of
Zeus or YHWH or sumo utter stuff
wrestlers of words wrestle with.

Preferences vary.

To see a country
as having a mind of its own,
or to see a forest, or a human,
along the same lines, may be drawn.

Why knot with God.
Why untie with Tao.

Why Grant actually died
might matter in various ways.

If stardust had a mind to
it might burn and fuse itself
during a process of creation.

[oxtail]

I'm against intellectualism,
because it is not that helpful
in finding my own humble way
to deal with my meager life.
I'm against intellectualism,
because it is not that helpful
in finding the universal way
that would help all human beings.
I'm just grateful that I have a body
that is nourished by Dao,
including my brain.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>I'm just grateful that I have a body
>that is nourished by Dao,
>including my brain.

Attitude of gratitude works at times.

Very helpful, that.

[Teresita]

oxtail wrote:
> I'm against intellectualism,
> because it is not that helpful
> in finding the universal way
> that would help all human beings.

Presuming to know is a disease. First realize that you are sick, then
you can move toward health.

[Teresita]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Why Grant actually died
> might matter in various ways.

Throat cancer. Cigars. Nuff said.

[oxtail]

Talking about yourself a lot does not mean
you know yourself.

[Teresita]

The soft overcomes the hard.
The slow overcomes the fast.
Let your workings remain a mystery.
Just show people the results.

[oxtail]

When you are supposed to do nothing?
What makes you think people would care?
Are we better off just because you are here?

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> Teresita wrote:
>> oxtail wrote:
>>> Teresita wrote:
>>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm against intellectualism, because it is not that helpful in
>>>>> finding the universal way that would help all human beings.
>>>>
>>>> Presuming to know is a disease. First realize that you are sick, then
>>>> you can move toward health.
>>>
>>> Talking about yourself a lot does not mean you know yourself.

I like to talk a lot.
About myself. About other people.
About ideas, events, nonsense.

It may all add up to nothing.
Akin to the chirps of baby birds.
Basically. More or less.

>> The soft overcomes the hard.
>> The slow overcomes the fast.
>> Let your workings remain a mystery.
>> Just show people the results.
>
>When you are supposed to do nothing?

Wu-wei tends to be effortless.

>What makes you think people would care?

Cuz some people dew?

>Are we better off just because you are here?

I am.
Always was.
Prolly will continue to be.

[Teresita]

Axes will never shorten my life and nothing will ever harm me. Since I
am of no use at all, who will make trouble for me?

Jay will interject here, saying, "Gnarly!"

[oxtail]

Aren't you too old to believe in fairies?

[noname]

If you find "the universal way that would help all human beings" they
will reject it because it does not pander to their desires; if you
pander to their desires they will raise you up and give you money
thinking they have purchased what cannot be purchased. In one case you
might be rejected, in the other you might be destroyed. I think the
whole business not worth the trouble, it is hard enough to keep the feet
moving in alternate order.

> I'm just grateful that I have a body
> that is nourished by Dao,
> including my brain.

So you reject the idea that misfortune comes from having a body?

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Defending yourself does not make you safe, it only hides dangers while
they multiply; better perhaps to ask what it is that must defend itself
and what it must defend itself against, if you dare risk finding the answer.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

Teresita wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>
>> Are we better off just because you are here?
>
>Axes will never shorten my life and nothing will ever harm me. Since I
>am of no use at all, who will make trouble for me?
>
>Jay will interject here, saying, "Gnarly!"

Being of no use sounds like a good idea.
Except for how that is not always true.

The honkless goose is a case in point.

One time Zz and his buds were trekking.

He'd already told them of the gnarly tree
and how, being of no use, it stood tall,
lived long, and prospered.

At dinner time, they stopped for a meal.

Their host told his young son to go kill
a goose. The son asked, which one.
Dad said, the one that does not honk.
Since it is good for nothing.

Not laying golden eggs
is another way to get one's goose cooked.

Meanwhile, I like to think we are better off
just because everyone is here.

Between better and worse
off and on, there might be a fine line.

The one that divides yin and yang,
for instance, as an example.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>So you reject the idea that misfortune comes from having a body?

A gander suggests that both
fortune and misfortune arise mutually
and have something to do with a body being.

Without a body,
either having or being,
one would not be mortal.

Not being mortal, one would be
a sort of immortal so to speak.

I like to say that I both,
have and do not have,
am and am not, a body,
this body, that body,
all bodies, etc.

The organic parts of me
part company with the inorganics
when carving myself to bits.

Parts of me are pure gold.
Much of me is iron and clay.
I think its my feet. As well as
being all in my head.

I used to be very bronze
during my sun-worshipping daze.

[oxtail]

It mostly comes from having a mind.
What would be the misfortune
of a body without a mind?
Can a mind be nourished by Dao?

[oxtail]

Clueless people irritate me.
Not that I have to defend myself,
as I don't care about their opinions;
but that they are begging me
to elaborate the obvious.

[Teresita]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Their host told his young son to go kill
> a goose. The son asked, which one.
> Dad said, the one that does not honk.
> Since it is good for nothing.

I would have told the lad to kill the goose that honked, because a lady
needs her nap time.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> noname wrote:
>
>>
>> So you reject the idea that misfortune comes from having a body?
>
>It mostly comes from having a mind.
>What would be the misfortune
>of a body without a mind?

It might be less than that of being with one.

>Can a mind be nourished by Dao?

Daoism may appear to take a different tack.

Mind-fasting is a technique used to access
a path which may be known as Dao.

With no-mind, wu-xin,
a body may be better off.
Wu-wei could be more
easily entered into.

[oxtail]

Isn't it natural for humans to have a mind?
Do you think minds can function long
without being nourished by Dao?