I have a question
Matthew Astill
_________________________________________ Matt ICQ#:134925067 Current ICQ
status: SMS: (Send an SMS message to my ICQ): +2783142134925067 More ways to
contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/134925067
_________________________________________
kamerm
news:a60iv5$cek$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Who am I?
oh, oh, pick me, pick me ;-)
"who's asking"
(for more in like vain, see alt.zen :-)
-k
(lotta contact info for someone with identity issues ;-)
Li Po Huan
Matthew Astill <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a60iv5$cek$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Who am I?
[snip (the superfluous contact details)]
smug: you're a dickhead?
angry: you're nobody, asshole, so fuck off.
counselor: who do you think you are?
taoist: ten pounds of flax
zen: <whack on the head with a stick>
i prefer the last one so whack youself really hard on the head or get
someone else to.
uhoh
eyes wide open and smiling.
"Matthew Astill" <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a60iv5$cek$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Jaybuzin0000
>Who am I?
you are the one
t'hat calls yers'elf Matthew Astill.
are you knot?
Guru George
<Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Who am I?
If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
insane, you'd find out :-)
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Jaybuzin0000
>matt may have wondered:
>>Who am I?
>
>If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
>and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
>insane, you'd find out :-)
in at-Once
up on a time beyond time
a gnarly tree, good for nothing, sat
pondering what it was.
its roots went deep
but its roots were full of holes.
it branches went sky-high, but its leaves
were also full of holes, as were all of its
many gnarly parts and parcels.
within the tubes, thru the holes, flowed
water and a great many elements. was it,
thought the tree, the tubes or the holes or
the elements flowing thru the holes and tubes?
was its essence water? or was its essence
more of dirt, out of which it grew and into
which its wood returns? was it really its seed
pod form or the environment which formed
its seed pod? who am I really, thought the
gnarly tree, good for nothing?
then along came the developers
and sought to make something of the tree.
they wondered what it was and of what use
it might be put. its bark and branches and
flowers and leaves were of the utmost yuck
and its roots were so deep they struck deep
in the muck. so the developers passed it by.
the gnarly tree, good for nothing, stood
for ages and ages wondering what it was,
wondering if it was a single thing or many
things or everything. children played beneath
its sprawling branches and adults rested
under its cooling shade.
who am I? am I good?
-for nothing.
uhoh
"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slOFPOzTIzI+HK...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:46:45 +0000 (UTC), "Matthew Astill"
> <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Who am I?
>
> If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
> and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
> insane, you'd find out :-)
why would you find out?
Norma Blankenfeld
Well, who knows about what you are. IN the Middle East these trees are
called Trees of life and are almost spoke when all you see are desert and
nothing ness around them..Norma
"Jaybuzin0000" <jaybuz...@cs.comm> wrote in message
news:20020305225739...@mb-fx.news.cs.com...
Jaybuzin0000
>Jay had written:
[...gnarly tree is good
for nothing...]
>Well, who knows about what you are.
Yes. Who is the quest'ion.
And, since who knows,
all we have to do is find who
and ask him\her\it.
> IN the Middle East these trees are
>called Trees of life and are almost spoke when all you see are desert and
>nothing ness around them..
What are they called in the land
of ten-k lakes? When water surrounds
land and land surrounds water and trees
abound and speaking of such things?
Who can say? Will who say?
>Norma
-in the grove
{:-])))
Snorky The Inept
> for nothing...]
>
> >Well, who knows about what you are.
>
> Yes. Who is the quest'ion.
> And, since who knows,
> all we have to do is find who
> and ask him\her\it.
Who's on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.
--
-Snorky the Inept
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
Jaybuzin0000
>Who's on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.
mebbe mebbe plays short stop?
Li Po
> <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Who am I?
>
> If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
> and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
> insane, you'd find out :-)
>
but you'd be mad so the answer wouldn't matter that much
Guru George
>
>"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:slOFPOzTIzI+HK...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:46:45 +0000 (UTC), "Matthew Astill"
>> <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Who am I?
>>
>> If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
>> and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
>> insane, you'd find out :-)
>
>why would you find out?
>
Because if you persist enough, it suddenly becomes obvious.
(But non-verbally - it's a way of being rather than something that can
be said in words. Oh of course it's easy enough to say, in words,
that one is the Universe - or the World, or God, or the Dao, or
whatever you want to call "it", this here before your very eyes! :-)
But it's hard to just _be_ that - the verbally thinking and
survival-based mind(s) has/have to be either stunned, quietened,
shocked, or otherwise put in abeyance, even if only for a few seconds
or minutes, for the glaringly obvious to become manifest.)
Jaybuzin0000
[...]
>of course it's easy enough to say, in words,
>that one is the Universe - or the World, or God, or the Dao, or
>whatever you want to call "it", this here before your very eyes! :-)
>But it's hard to just _be_ that
how can one not _be_ that?
>- the verbally thinking and
>survival-based mind(s) has/have to be either stunned, quietened,
>shocked, or otherwise put in abeyance, even if only for a few seconds
>or minutes, for the glaringly obvious to become manifest.)
that is not this one two?
-jest curious
bout 10-k things
in a boxing ring
of tweedle dee and
seven of nine agreed
to have a battle
uhoh
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:15:28 -0500, "uhoh" <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:slOFPOzTIzI+HK...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:46:45 +0000 (UTC), "Matthew Astill"
> >> <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Who am I?
> >>
> >> If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
> >> and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
> >> insane, you'd find out :-)
> >
> >why would you find out?
> >
>
> Because if you persist enough, it suddenly becomes obvious.
>
but thanks for trying.
(some words have lost their usefullness to me,
i think persist may be one of them,
- or perhaps i subconciously persist and don't realize it.)
i really hate having to make an effort,
when the time is right, things get done.
that doesn't always go well with my boss at work.
Jaybuzin0000
>gg muge'd:
[...s]
>> Because if you persist enough, it suddenly becomes obvious.
>>
>i still don't get why it suddenly becomes obvious,
It doesn't necessarily.
GG has overstated the case.
No technique is guaranteed. Dao ke dao.
>but thanks for trying.
koans are koans.
levels are levels.
is a level always level?
>(some words have lost their usefullness to me,
>i think persist may be one of them,
>- or perhaps i subconciously persist and don't realize it.)
who is the you that is doing all t'hats?
>i really hate having to make an effort,
who is doing the hating?
does hate happen of its'elf
or do you conjure it up, sum hows?
>when the time is right, things get done.
mebbe you don't exist.
mebbe you don't have a permanent s'elf.
>that doesn't always go well with my boss at work.
he's a who of a different colour.
with self, without self;
if these two are one
then w'hat is left
right?
rick
"Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU!!! I throw the ball to who. Whoever
it is
drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball
and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know
throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and
hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third
and I don't give a darn!
Abbott: What?
Costello: I said I don't give a darn!
Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop. "
rick
>
> Oh of course it's easy enough to say, in words,
> that one is the Universe - or the World, or God, or the Dao, or
> whatever you want to call "it",
Please do not equate god and Dao.
Also Dao is not "it".
There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
Dao, which is none of those.
The way you phrase it, "it" is used as a metaphor for a 'higher power'.
Tao is not a 'higher power'. The universe is not a 'higher power'.
Tao is not a deity.
kamerm
news:3C8788...@iglou.comEDY...
...
> There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
> benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
> Dao, which is none of those.
such being, by infinite benevolence affording all things the space to be
themselves, would be indistinguishable from a universe of surprises
conforming to an indefinable Way.
fwliw :-)
-k
rick
Huh? How does the indefineable, define a way for a chaoic universe?
I would think that the nature of the universe as it is, surprises
or not, is Tao without form and would not require forming
with(con-forming). Also since 'such being' is mentioned,
does 'such being' exist? The universe exists, since it is agreed
by concensus that it does, but 'Such being' cannot be said to
exist by concensus, since not everyone 'believes' that 'such being'
exists.
Degrimlin
fwliw :-)
-k
whatever tao is or is not could be similar or not to any other name chosen to
describe what is or is not. If some have a problem with the words god or
whatever i recon its probally a problem of a personal nature.
rick
Actually it is a problem of relevance to Taoist Philosophy.
If you're Talking about a deity your not talking about tao.
Real simple.
Jaybuzin0000
>jer wrote:
[...]
>> whatever tao is or is not could be similar or not to any other name chosen
>to
>> describe what is or is not. If some have a problem with the words god or
>> whatever i recon its probally a problem of a personal nature.
>
>Actually it is a problem of relevance to Taoist Philosophy.
>If you're Talking about a deity your not talking about tao.
>Real simple.
whelp,
t'hat makes it Official!
Degrimlin
<<<whelp,
t'hat makes it Official! Jay<--
I actually tend to agree with him... but....
Diety, god, tao, could be similar non things... now if they all are bogus i
guess we are limited to certain boundries on the accepted non existant
fantasies in order to meet his criteria of correctness.
rick
When talking about Taoist Philosophy, Tao, as the central term
being discussed, is not regarded as a bogus non thing nor as a non
existant fantasy.
If fantasy were the topic, we could go to alt.dreams.lucid
and discuss fantasy there. But we are in alt.philosophy.taoism so it
would seem that a prerequisite of being able to discuss the topic
is a acknowledgement of the concept of Tao as non bogus.
kamerm
heh Bud :-)
hence the "would"
(and i didn't say chaotic, just "surprises" ;-)
-k
kamerm
or at least Offal anyways ;-)
nice to know Tao applies to all things
except those matters involving "deity"
who new that "appears to be prior to Ti"
meant "anithetical to Ti"
oh well :-)
-k
Degrimlin
>
> rick wrote:
> >jer wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> whatever tao is or is not could be similar or not to any other name chosen
> >to
> >> describe what is or is not. If some have a problem with the words god or
> >> whatever i recon its probally a problem of a personal nature.
> >
> >Actually it is a problem of relevance to Taoist Philosophy.
> >If you're Talking about a deity your not talking about tao.
> >Real simple.
>
> <<<whelp,
> t'hat makes it Official! Jay<--
>
> I actually tend to agree with him... but....
> Diety, god, tao, could be similar non things... now if they all are
> bogus i guess we are limited to certain boundries on the accepted non
> existant fantasies in order to meet his criteria of correctness.
<><When talking about Taoist Philosophy, Tao, as the central term
being discussed, is not regarded as a bogus non thing nor as a non
existant fantasy.(ric-
but you do know what it is not? And that it is? :-)
<><If fantasy were the topic, we could go to alt.dreams.lucid
and discuss fantasy there. But we are in alt.philosophy.taoism so it
would seem that a prerequisite of being able to discuss the topic
is a acknowledgement of the concept of Tao as non bogus.(ric-
Ah Ha! so thats the problem! Its a concept.
See i never realized that.. But then of course the concept is indescribable and
if actually conceptualized then it is false tao concept. But the rules is to
pretend the conceptualization equals the tao concept? or would that be a tao
concept that cannot be conceptualized? Of course if it is the later i reckon it
would be very difficult proving it to be a non bogus entity.. (opps thats non
entity?) Of is its bogus status a declaration that is irrefutable but not
provable but required to declare in order to post here(rule #2). Of course then
we will acknowledge various aspects of our non bogus tao .. in particular in
relations to various gods, god and anti gods..
Jaybuzin0000
>j wrote:
>>r wrote:
>>>d wrote:
>> >> whatever tao is or is not could be similar or not to any other name
>chosen
>> >to
>> >> describe what is or is not. If some have a problem with the words god
>or
>> >> whatever i recon its probally a problem of a personal nature.
some people have a problem with crap
and shit and fuck and other words. probably
it is a personal problem. Some would say
that Tao ain't shit.
>> >Actually it is a problem of relevance to Taoist Philosophy.
>> >If you're Talking about a deity your not talking about tao.
>> >Real simple.
>>
>> whelp,
>> t'hat makes it Official!
>
>or at least Offal anyways ;-)
>
>nice to know Tao applies to all things
>except those matters involving "deity"
>who new that "appears to be prior to Ti"
>meant "anithetical to Ti"
To say that Tao is even in shit
is different from saying that Tao is shit
or that Tao is the same as or similar to shit.
Personally, I consider Tao to be good shit.
I think God is pretty good shit too. And Tod,
well, he ain't heavy ...
>oh well :-)
-ribbit
{:-])))
>-k
Doctornine
Why I used to like to come here...
Pretty much distills it down, don't it?
Thanks...
D9
Jim Fish
> Ah Ha! so thats the problem! Its a concept.
jf:
Sounds right. Intangible might be a word.
> degrimlin:
> But then of course the concept is indescribable and
> if actually conceptualized then it is false tao concept.
jf:
I don't think so. It is describable, knowable but never entirely
accurate (dao ke dao fei chang dao) but never entirely inaccurate
either (yinyang). To equate Dao with a concept perhaps limits Dao, but
to say Dao is not this nor that object is accurate IMO.
> degrimlin:
> But the rules is to
> pretend the conceptualization equals the tao concept?
jf:
I would hope that no one really believes a 'concept'-ualization of Dao
equals the Dao. A conceptualization may equal a conceptualization.
> degrimlin:
> or would that be a tao
> concept that cannot be conceptualized?
jf:
Of course one can conceptualize it but that concept may be fleeting.
That is, it gives a glimpse to a part of a whole or a dao within Dao.
Still an object is not Dao even though it has dao and is a part of
Dao.
> degrimlin:
> Of course if it is the later i reckon > it
> would be very difficult proving it to be a non bogus entity.. (opps thats non
> entity?) Of is its bogus status a declaration that is irrefutable but not
> provable but required to declare in order to post here(rule #2). Of course > then we will acknowledge various aspects of our non bogus tao .. in
> particular in
> relations to various gods, god and anti gods..
jf:
Those various aspects would also be daos not Dao, but those objects
would not be Dao/Daos/daos although they would have daos and be a part
of Dao.
Jim Fish
> To say that Tao is even in shit
> is different from saying that Tao is shit
jf:
Bingo! But since rick pointed that out using his chosen (abused? ;)
) argument against Tao=God there seems to be an unspoken button being
pushed on the other side of the issue. That is, rick is often accused
of having his button pushed, I have been accused of the same (even
when it has been another's quote) while the opposing side claims
defense.
Both sides have buttons being pushed. And for the record Tao=God will
get a response from me (that is, button pushed)
Degrimlin
> Ah Ha! so thats the problem! Its a concept.
jf:
Sounds right. Intangible might be a word.
intangible = (can/most likely) =bogus :-)
> degrimlin:
> But then of course the concept is indescribable and
> if actually conceptualized then it is false tao concept.
jf:
I don't think so. It is describable, knowable but never entirely
accurate (dao ke dao fei chang dao) but never entirely inaccurate
either (yinyang). To equate Dao with a concept perhaps limits Dao, but
to say Dao is not this nor that object is accurate IMO.
Your opinion is noted. :-) Seriously tho ;-) it makes no sense as i'm sure you
would agree.
> degrimlin:
> But the rules is to
> pretend the conceptualization equals the tao concept?
jf:
I would hope that no one really believes a 'concept'-ualization of Dao
equals the Dao. A conceptualization may equal a conceptualization.
agreed. The original intent was to show the rediculas-ness of some who would
take an unknown at best and then detail its attributes
> degrimlin:
> or would that be a tao
> concept that cannot be conceptualized?
jf:
Of course one can conceptualize it but that concept may be fleeting.
That is, it gives a glimpse to a part of a whole or a dao within Dao.
Still an object is not Dao even though it has dao and is a part of
Dao.
Makes sense to me... perhaps it was the coffee.
> degrimlin:
> Of course if it is the later i reckon > it
> would be very difficult proving it to be a non bogus entity.. (opps thats non
> entity?) Of is its bogus status a declaration that is irrefutable but not
> provable but required to declare in order to post here(rule #2). Of course
> then we will acknowledge various aspects of our non bogus tao .. in
> particular in
> relations to various gods, god and anti gods..
jf:
Those various aspects would also be daos not Dao, but those objects
would not be Dao/Daos/daos although they would have daos and be a part
of Dao.
A dangerous path at best.. as the opposite could also be or even both or
neither or all of the infinate sets. jer
kamerm
news:20020308092230...@mb-fb.aol.com...
...
> Makes sense to me... perhaps it was the coffee.
in Z! talk
the higher manasic is about the highest modality
this group can stabily sustain
unless a focus is introduced
but none's volunteering to be the buddhi focus
and "our" intolerance for non-taoist religious folks
makes taoist religious folks not like the way "we" smell --
so, coffee it is! (or tea -- Clean cups! Move down!)
cf: (paste in the address bar WITHOUT spaces, then hit enter)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1998032820470201.PAA23056%40ladder01.ne
ws.aol.com&output=gplain
-k
Degrimlin
...
in Z! talk
the higher manasic is about the highest modality
this group can stabily sustain
unless a focus is introduced
but none's volunteering to be the buddhi focus
and "our" intolerance for non-taoist religious folks
makes taoist religious folks not like the way "we" smell --
<>so, coffee it is! (or tea -- Clean cups! Move down!) k-
thank- that was fun!
Miller Jew
jim_...@my-deja.com (Jim Fish) wrote:
jay wrote:
>...To say that Tao is even in shit
>is different from saying that Tao is shit
>or that Tao is the same as... shit.
jf:
>Bingo!
Can I play next? jf ;-) I think I'm hearing what you guys are saying.
jf
>But since rick pointed that out using his chosen (abused? ;)
>) argument against Tao=God
Actually more so 'ridiculous' in that God/G-d should be matched with our
Chinese (God)=Ti. Then we could really 'bind' with each other (for loving:)
and... warring).
Rather, Tao is the process (or ideograph-literally "uniting way") for harmony
with man and nature. Articulating this further: "The (Way)Tao can only be
attained by the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way).
One must become the (Way)Tao" --Prof. Raghavan Iyer (hi!k:). "Tao Te Ching: Lao
Tzu".
jf
>there seems to be an unspoken button being pushed on the other side of the
>issue. That is, rick is often accused of having his button pushed, I have been
>accused of the same (even when it has been another's quote) while the
>opposing side claims defense. Both sides have buttons being pushed. And for
>the record Tao=God will get a response from me (that is, button pushed)
Certainly for academic accuracy (as you, J and Rick, others do) this God/G-d=Ti
is grade school elementary, 'tho oft, it must be "pushed": (to) reiterate
reiterate and reiterate.. --zzzz
Doctornine
K
>the higher manasic is about the highest
>modality this group can stabily sustain
>unless a focus is introduced
>but none's volunteering to be the buddhi focus
>and "our" intolerance for non-taoist religious folks
>makes taoist religious folks not like the way "we"
>smell
If this is true,
and your assertion is by no means proven,
then their intolerance is no better.
Besides, there are a number of NG now available
which might be used exclusively for those topics,
where no one from here even posts. They have
not done so, so the ball is in their court..
To me, it seems laughable that any system built
on daoist thought, would pretend to have such
delicate sensibilities.
Whatever.
D9
kamerm
news:20020308154851...@mb-ba.aol.com...
not intolerance, just lack of time/desire for such wrestling :-)
(but we enjoy such well enough, eh Doc ?-)
-k (still "not-a-taoist" ;-)
Doctornine
time... time...
never enough is always just right
D9
Miller Jew
"kamerm" <remove the x from kam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Degrimlin" <degr...@aol.com> wrote in message
...
> Makes sense to me... perhaps it was the coffee. <<-- 'stimulating' discussion
:)
...
K
>in Z! talk -->> huh?? ;-)
>
>the higher manasic is about the highest modality
Ok-k:)-let's "erh?", gyrate:) (For my collectively analyzing)-- "manastic"
meaning (Holy Moses!") "manas" mental-stuff, the mental-stuff 'collected', in
what C. Jung 'saw' (our humanity's) "collective-consciousness" li-pattern. And
so, it's easy for "manas" to "fall":) now -- as we are more evolutionarily
mental-capable to reason/with, than it was anciently then, when we were more
emotionally onenessing:)
k ( i repeat)
>the higher manasic is about the highest modality
"Higher" manastic meaning higher ch'i-frequencies of (our mental)-mana's
'stuff'. (I.e. in Mystery School speak, our dear momma Earth-collaborated
(hun-soul)deva-beings 'stuffed' (into this kind of mental form-ation) to "Tao
(em)Body" service for human elevating. It's so archetype-ally sublime, it's
like what Prof. Cleary (in .."Golden Flower") calls it "formless
consciousness", yet in descent, (D-9:) fecundable ((in like-demo - CT or LT's
"bursting forth" :-)!<-- (into "laughter:))* That's our intuitive frequency,
the elder to (this) our lesser brethrens mental "manas" frequencies -- or, this
interwoven/web 'gathering of minds'-stuff).
k
>this group can stabily sustain
>unless a focus is introduced
>but none's volunteering to be the buddhi focus
Nor that this a.p.t. needs to volunteer, nonsuch keeps the 'excite'ment/in:-o
:-). Albeit, that 'focus introduced' comes from (indeed) the "buddhi focus",
that is, our individual capacity to access into this intuitive synthetic
dynamic. Where our Tao-Chiao/Religious Taoism speaks of "Tao, wu-wei
transcendent act" -(Prof. Saso) we can get a flavor of this high frequency
Go/get-ting. Or, for our philosophical 'speak': "chih" "..it has the meaning
of intuitive knowledge"--CCYuan/ "Creativity and Taoism".
k
>and "our" intolerance for non-taoist religious folks
>makes taoist religious folks not like the way "we" smell --
Tangetically, it's a a kind of a sad toss-up, one way or another for me; for
generally speaking, it does "smell". (Via cnn, news) for my trying to
"tolerate" the multi flesh-eating "religious" warrings goings on now in the
world, makes even my attempt to deal religiously -even of the Tao-Chiao kind
here, rather non-inspirational.
For that said, >k>so, coffee it is! (or tea -- Clean cups! Move down!) for
drinking coffee! rightly now --notstanding 'L.C.'s Alice's' :)
--Zhou
Jim Fish
> I don't think so. [Dao] is describable, knowable but never entirely
> accurate (dao ke dao fei chang dao) but never entirely inaccurate
> either (yinyang). To equate Dao with a concept perhaps limits Dao, but
> to say Dao is not this nor that object is accurate IMO.
>
> Your opinion is noted. :-) Seriously tho ;-) it makes no sense as i'm sure
> you would agree.
jf:
Can one say say that Dao is this or that object?
> jf:
> I would hope that no one really believes a 'concept'-ualization of Dao
> equals the Dao. A conceptualization may equal a conceptualization.
>
> degrimlin:
> agreed. The original intent was to show the rediculas-ness of some who would
> take an unknown at best and then detail its attributes
jf:
Objectifying, as it were. Like equating Dao with God or shit.
kamerm
news:20020308163556...@mb-mq.aol.com......
> >and "our" intolerance for non-taoist religious folks
> >makes taoist religious folks not like the way "we" smell --
>
> Tangetically, it's a a kind of a sad toss-up, one way or another for me;
> for generally speaking, it does "smell". (Via cnn, news) for my trying to
> "tolerate" the multi flesh-eating "religious" warrings goings on now in
> the world, makes even my attempt to deal religiously -even of the
> Tao-Chiao kind here, rather non-inspirational.
>
> For that said, >k>so, coffee it is! (or tea -- Clean cups! Move down!)
> for drinking coffee! rightly now --notstanding 'L.C.'s Alice's' :)
>
> --Zhou
Z! :-)
sadness is feeling irremediably out of place
sometimes its a sign of needing to refocus
perhaps too big a view (even when not leaving home err CNN ;-)
makes folks feel helpless and sad
yet little by little (and then sometimes all in a rush :-)
smart little things like us shift the brute social collectives
-k
Jaybuzin0000
[...]
> "The (Way)Tao can only be
>attained by the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way).
>One must become the (Way)Tao" --Prof. Raghavan Iyer (hi!k:). "Tao Te Ching:
>Lao Tzu".
I am a one.
In my next act'ion, nothing is
up mah sleeve (shaken, not stirred);
for the benifit of mister kite, th'air will
be a show tonite, as a catfish juggles hats
and becomes Tod!
-riding trike
with a hand waving
under teh
really big top
s'pinning
Guru George
wrote:
>Guru George wrote:
>>
>> Oh of course it's easy enough to say, in words,
>> that one is the Universe - or the World, or God, or the Dao, or
>> whatever you want to call "it",
>
>
>Please do not equate god and Dao.
>Also Dao is not "it".
>
>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>Dao, which is none of those.
>
>The way you phrase it, "it" is used as a metaphor for a 'higher power'.
>Tao is not a 'higher power'. The universe is not a 'higher power'.
>Tao is not a deity.
When people who have used "God talk" a lot (e.g. Europeans) get to the
point where their "God" is not a person, but more like an impersonal
power, that's pretty much the same thing as Dao.
And yet there IS a kind of personality to the universe; the Dao is
"the way of things", but since each thing has a particular way, and
the collection of particular ways is a particular, unique way itself,
that queer limitedness (so well captured by Wittgenstein's comment
somewhere, that the limitedness is what's mystical - compare also
Sartre) is itself a kind of personality, so that kind of pulls it
towards the "God" camp.
But in fact, the long and the short of the matter is that there's
something utterly mysterious in all this. All these are either
discussions about abstractions concocted by people who are guessing,
or discussions about a genuine "experience" it's possible to have
(although, since one isn't there, in a sense, it's not an "experience"
in the normal sense), but an experience of what one might call the
"concrete universal", the living abstraction that is the universe
taken as a Great Big Thing, of itself, by itself.
It's _all_ blind elephant-feeling - God, Dao, the whole shebang.
There's something there ... but we all get partial glimpses of it.
So stop being so hard on all that God shit :-)
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Guru George
wrote:
>uhoh wrote:
>>gg muge'd:
>[...s]
>
>>> Because if you persist enough, it suddenly becomes obvious.
>>>
>>i still don't get why it suddenly becomes obvious,
>
>It doesn't necessarily.
>GG has overstated the case.
>No technique is guaranteed. Dao ke dao.
>
I think I specifically mentioned somewhere (or if I haven't I should
have done) that it's not a "techne", but a cultivation. A non-linear
cause-effect, not a linear one.
However, I have to strongly disagree that I've overstated the case - I
think I've got it just about right. Though the effort isn't linearly
connected with the result, unless you are extraordinarily lucky or
blessed, you do have to put out some effort. Even as a child you have
to put out some effort, and I say that even though I believe that the
younger you are (and maybe the older you are?) the easier it is to
have a mystical experience (because the survival-mind is "under
construction" ("deconstruction"?) when you are young ("old"?)?). A
fair number of kids have mystical experiences, but our culture doesn't
mark them as important (hardly any culture does, and sometimes the
ones that do do it in a terribly stilted, politicised way). As you
get older, they get rarer. When you are very solidly, crustily you,
very much stuck in the role of being George or Jay, the clouds are so
thick, and you are living in the land cloud-cover, the land of
Shadows. It really will take some effort to see through those clouds
for most people, Jay.
But I affirm from my own childhood experience that there's a sun
there, and I believe that while it does take some effort, and that the
degree of effort required for most people probably shouldn't be
underestimated, it _is_ possible to see that sun again as an adult,
see it in one's lifetime in a fully mature, fully conscious way,
without destroying oneself in the process.
We _can_ have it all folks.
Guru George
>
>"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TKiGPM08rHxG1lRokiTSbQyY5=v...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:15:28 -0500, "uhoh" <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:slOFPOzTIzI+HK...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:46:45 +0000 (UTC), "Matthew Astill"
>> >> <Leeder...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Who am I?
>> >>
>> >> If you were ever to ask that question sincerely, truly, madly, deeply,
>> >> and to persist in asking it even if you thought it was driving you
>> >> insane, you'd find out :-)
>> >
>> >why would you find out?
>> >
>>
>> Because if you persist enough, it suddenly becomes obvious.
>>
>i still don't get why it suddenly becomes obvious,
>but thanks for trying.
>(some words have lost their usefullness to me,
>i think persist may be one of them,
>- or perhaps i subconciously persist and don't realize it.)
>i really hate having to make an effort,
>when the time is right, things get done.
>that doesn't always go well with my boss at work.
>
Our lives go in phases. Sometimes it's right to go with the flow,
sometimes it's right to impose one's will on the flow. I hope you've
got your phases right, and aren't just being lazy! :-)
Guru George
wrote:
>George wrote:
>[...]
>
>>of course it's easy enough to say, in words,
>>that one is the Universe - or the World, or God, or the Dao, or
>>whatever you want to call "it", this here before your very eyes! :-)
>>But it's hard to just _be_ that
>
>how can one not _be_ that?
>
You are that, but if you don't think you are, but think you are only
one part of it all, and that part exclusively, then ... well, then
that's what you think! :-)
Here's an utterly fantastic little poem that strikes the heart of the
matter by the Dzogchen practitioner Namkhai Norbu, called "The Little
Song of Do as you please"
In the natural condition, the supreme space
which does not fall into the limits
of measurement or even the concept of direction,
Whatever presents itself there,
I enjoy as an ornament.
I don?t make any effort
to create or reject anything.
You who take up preferences,
Do as you please.
Directly in the space of the dimension
Of original purity,
I meet all meditative experiences,
manifestations of energy, and visions
in a state of equanimity.
With no need to desire
artificial religious practice, I am happy.
You who dwell on mental constructions,
Do as you please.
This is the same Zen as Seng Tsan, the same Dao as Qingjing Jing, the
same God as Jakob Boehme, the same Self as Ramana Maharshi, the same
vision as Douglas Harding, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Jaybuzin0000
>rs stated a Taoist posit'ion:
[...s]
>>Please do not equate god and Dao.
>>Also Dao is not "it".
TTC 4 is an axiom. In the CT are stories
as well as in Kuo Hsiang's commentaries.
Please define Taoism. It is not New Age.
>>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>>Dao, which is none of those.
>When people who have used "God talk" a lot (e.g. Europeans)
When people who have used "Tao talk" a lot
>get to the
>point where their "God" is not a person, but more like an impersonal
>power, that's pretty much the same thing as Dao.
pretty much is not the same as.
A caterpiller does not know how it moves
or keeps track of all its legs. It simply begins
and all else follows. Dao doesn't know shit
but is in all sorts of shit. God, otoh, and\or
a particular element of the Universe does
know and information is extant regarding
exactly how many hairs are on a head
and when each sparrow falls. The spark
of the caterpiller may be Jim'spark of Tao.
It is quite different from Godsp'ark.
>And yet there IS a kind of personality to the universe; the Dao is
>"the way of things",
zi ran, tzu-jan, is the nature of things.
Is Dao the same as Mother Nature?
She treats things as straw dogs. Everything
eats something on the food pyramid. It's a
kill-fest of turtles, all the way down.
>a kind of personality, so that kind of pulls it
>towards the "God" camp.
the genocidal, suicide bomber camp?
>But in fact, the long and the short of the matter is that there's
>something utterly mysterious in all this.
yu ming and wu ming, twain are marked One.
>All these are either
>discussions about abstractions concocted by people who are guessing,
either or? a limited pov.
These could be discussions about daojia.
>or discussions about a genuine "experience"
daojia may speak of an experience.
it may also speak of dao ke dao fei chang dao.
Is 'dao ke dao' a talk, or a walk? Either way
is it 'chang dao'? Apparently, knot?
>the living abstraction that is the universe
>taken as a Great Big Thing, of itself, by itself.
Such a GBT is usually called Tod.
>It's _all_ blind elephant-feeling -
for you, this may be the extent of you 'experience'
whereas for others th'air is more, much m'ore.
>God, Dao, the whole shebang.
>There's something there ... but we all get partial glimpses of it.
ten thou sand things are t'here.
Elephants, rhinos, hippopotummyooses.
All three have big legs and big heads.
Some are unable to tell the difference.
>So stop being so hard on all that God shit :-)
When Elijah called down fire from heaven
he asked if "their" God was on the shitter.
If the story is true, God indeed exists.
If Taoism is based in truth, Tao is prior to Ti
accordion to Taoist philosophy.
New Agers are a paradigm per do-zen.
-imbo
Jaybuzin0000
[...s]
>This is the same Zen as Seng Tsan, the same Dao as Qingjing Jing, the
>same God as Jakob Boehme, the same Self as Ramana Maharshi, the same
>vision as Douglas Harding, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
I know of a mechanic who has a wrench.
I know of a doctor who has a wrench.
I know of a shrink who has a wrench.
I know of an ornithologist who has a wrench.
I know of a philatelist who has a wrench.
I know of a numismaticist who has a wrench.
In a way, they are all the same. In a way
they are all different. So what are they
really?
dao ke dao ...
yunlong
> GG wrote, and quoted:
> [...s]
>
>
>
> >This is the same Zen as Seng Tsan, the same Dao as Qingjing Jing, the
> >same God as Jakob Boehme, the same Self as Ramana Maharshi, the same
> >vision as Douglas Harding, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Really?
>
> I know of a mechanic who has a wrench.
> I know of a doctor who has a wrench.
> I know of a shrink who has a wrench.
> I know of an ornithologist who has a wrench.
> I know of a philatelist who has a wrench.
> I know of a numismaticist who has a wrench.
> In a way, they are all the same.
In "what" sense?
> In a way they are all different.
In "what" sense?
> So what are they really?
"What" are they really?
>
> dao ke dao ...
For those who inherited the wind, ...
misty
BraveNewWhirl
> I know of a mechanic who has a wrench.
> I know of a doctor who has a wrench-ure.
He can use it to fix your dent-ure
> I know of a shrink who has a wrench.
> I know of an ornithologist who has a wrench.
> I know of a philatelist who has a wrench.
> I know of a numismaticist who has a wrench.
Guru George
wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
various facts/things, is accidental. I was talking about things that
look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
reasoning - being in fact the same.
Guru George
wrote:
I don't think you're addressing my argument. The knowing in the sense
of listing is one of the things that's a fantasy about God, a human
fantasy - but as the Christian philosopher thinks harder, or the
Christian mystic gets some experience, those notions drop off, and
what's left is ... well, pretty much the same thing as Dao.
>>And yet there IS a kind of personality to the universe; the Dao is
>>"the way of things",
>
>zi ran, tzu-jan, is the nature of things.
>Is Dao the same as Mother Nature?
>She treats things as straw dogs. Everything
>eats something on the food pyramid. It's a
>kill-fest of turtles, all the way down.
>
Yup, and your point?
>>a kind of personality, so that kind of pulls it
>>towards the "God" camp.
>
>the genocidal, suicide bomber camp?
>
Huh? I've told you, that's the kind of thing that drops off as one
gets closer to what's really behind this vague idea of "God". Same as
personality begins to appear as one gets closer to what's really
behind this vague idea of "Dao".
>>But in fact, the long and the short of the matter is that there's
>>something utterly mysterious in all this.
>
>yu ming and wu ming, twain are marked One.
>
>>All these are either
>>discussions about abstractions concocted by people who are guessing,
>
>either or? a limited pov.
>These could be discussions about daojia.
>
Well, if you know, you don't have to guess and speculate.
>>or discussions about a genuine "experience"
>
>daojia may speak of an experience.
>it may also speak of dao ke dao fei chang dao.
>Is 'dao ke dao' a talk, or a walk? Either way
>is it 'chang dao'? Apparently, knot?
>
Mainly an experience, or perhaps you could say a way of experiencing.
>>the living abstraction that is the universe
>>taken as a Great Big Thing, of itself, by itself.
>
>Such a GBT is usually called Tod.
>
>>It's _all_ blind elephant-feeling -
>
>for you, this may be the extent of you 'experience'
>whereas for others th'air is more, much m'ore.
>
You get your piece of the puzzle, I got mine.
>>God, Dao, the whole shebang.
>>There's something there ... but we all get partial glimpses of it.
>
>ten thou sand things are t'here.
>Elephants, rhinos, hippopotummyooses.
>All three have big legs and big heads.
>Some are unable to tell the difference.
>
There is no difference in one sense, there is a difference in another.
Everything is the same in being unique.
>>So stop being so hard on all that God shit :-)
>
>When Elijah called down fire from heaven
>he asked if "their" God was on the shitter.
>If the story is true, God indeed exists.
>If Taoism is based in truth, Tao is prior to Ti
>accordion to Taoist philosophy.
>
>New Agers are a paradigm per do-zen.
>-imbo
- Guru George
Jaybuzin0000
>jay'd asserted:
>> GG wrote, and quoted:
>> [...s]
>>
>> >This is the same Zen as Seng Tsan, the same Dao as Qingjing Jing, the
>> >same God as Jakob Boehme, the same Self as Ramana Maharshi, the same
>> >vision as Douglas Harding, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>Really?
I can see what George is saying, really!
It's not an uncommon pov.
>> I know of a mechanic who has a wrench.
>> I know of a doctor who has a wrench.
>> I know of a shrink who has a wrench.
>> I know of an ornithologist who has a wrench.
>> I know of a philatelist who has a wrench.
>> I know of a numismaticist who has a wrench.
>> In a way, they are all the same.
>
>In "what" sense?
In the sense that wrenches do the same thing.
>> In a way they are all different.
>
>In "what" sense?
In the sense that a spanner isn't the same
as a forceps or a psychological tool or a
bird or a stamp or a coin type wrench.
>> So what are they really?
>
>"What" are they really?
Tools are what one makes of t'hems.
Experiences are as well. Siddhartha may
have done something. Jesus did something.
Moses did. All the folks George mentioned
may have done, or not done, things with the
experiences they had. They may or may not
have had an identical experience. The Self
of Krishna may be the God of Moses, or not.
The Zen of wall gazing might be the hanging
on a tree of another, or not. The mud of Zz
might be the same as the stirring of Kongzi,
oar knot, deependings.
Jaybuzin0000
>Jay wrote:
[...wrenching...]
>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
okay.
>Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
>similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
>various facts/things, is accidental.
An elephant and a rhino may appear
to blind men to be the same critter.
Upon closer observation they are different.
From another order of magnitude they may
again appear to be similar\same. What are
they really, 'in fact'?
> I was talking about things that
>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>reasoning - being in fact the same.
In fact? Really?
Please define 'fact'.
Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
Suppose you have a mystical experience
or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
How can you state, factually, that it is the
same experience as anyone else had?
I would assert quite the opposite.
Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
The facts are, each is unique; no matter
how similar or same they may abstractly
appear to blind men.
Guru George
wrote:
>George wrote:
>>Jay wrote:
>[...wrenching...]
>
>>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>
>okay.
>
>>Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
>>similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
>>various facts/things, is accidental.
>
>An elephant and a rhino may appear
>to blind men to be the same critter.
>Upon closer observation they are different.
>From another order of magnitude they may
>again appear to be similar\same. What are
>they really, 'in fact'?
>
They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take. One
mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
>> I was talking about things that
>>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>>reasoning - being in fact the same.
>
>In fact? Really?
>Please define 'fact'.
>Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
>
If you claim something is a fact, you are more or less claiming that
the experiences one would expect of "it", from various "angles", will
pan out just as the name you are using predicts they will. Nothing
too complicated.
>Suppose you have a mystical experience
>or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
>How can you state, factually, that it is the
>same experience as anyone else had?
>I would assert quite the opposite.
>Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
>The facts are, each is unique; no matter
>how similar or same they may abstractly
>appear to blind men.
But that's a cheap shot - of course they aren't exactly the same, they
are simply of the same class. Every thing is unique, but they come in
families. What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
there is only one mystical experience, though it has different
shadings and "grades" of "depth" (one might say) because there is only
one universe, one Being, one Thing here. And the absence of Jay in
Jay's experience, the absence of George in George's experience,
reveals the Presence of this Great Big Thing in all its glory.
yunlong
> misty may have wondered:
> >jay'd asserted:
> >> GG wrote, and quoted:
> >> [...s]
> >>
> >> >This is the same Zen as Seng Tsan, the same Dao as Qingjing Jing, the
> >> >same God as Jakob Boehme, the same Self as Ramana Maharshi, the same
> >> >vision as Douglas Harding, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
> >
> >Really?
>
> I can see what George is saying, really!
> It's not an uncommon pov.
When being asked, "What is the Buddha," "Three jins of hemp," the
master, Tung-shan, answered. How "same" is the Jakob Boehme's God, or
the Ramana Maharshi's Self?
>
> >> I know of a mechanic who has a wrench.
> >> I know of a doctor who has a wrench.
> >> I know of a shrink who has a wrench.
> >> I know of an ornithologist who has a wrench.
> >> I know of a philatelist who has a wrench.
> >> I know of a numismaticist who has a wrench.
> >> In a way, they are all the same.
> >
> >In "what" sense?
>
> In the sense that wrenches do the same thing.
The internal essence,
>
> >> In a way they are all different.
> >
> >In "what" sense?
>
> In the sense that a spanner isn't the same
> as a forceps or a psychological tool or a
> bird or a stamp or a coin type wrench.
and the external appearance,
partitioned thinking/observation?
>
> >> So what are they really?
> >
> >"What" are they really?
>
> Tools are what one makes of t'hems.
> Experiences are as well. Siddhartha may
> have done something. Jesus did something.
> Moses did. All the folks George mentioned
> may have done, or not done, things with the
> experiences they had. They may or may not
> have had an identical experience. The Self
> of Krishna may be the God of Moses, or not.
> The Zen of wall gazing might be the hanging
> on a tree of another, or not. The mud of Zz
> might be the same as the stirring of Kongzi,
> oar knot, deependings.
Are you saying that because every one does something their own ways,
so their ways are Tao?
>
> >> dao ke dao ...
> >
> >For those who inherited the wind, ...
Empirically, have no experience;
analytically, cannot reason, ...
Watching the wind blows,
misty
Jaybuzin0000
>JB wrote:
>>gg surmised and muge'd:
>>>rs stated a Taoist posit'ion:
>>>>Also Dao is not "it".
>>
>>TTC 4 is an axiom. In the CT are stories
>>as well as in Kuo Hsiang's commentaries.
>>Please define Taoism. It is not New Age.
well?
>>>>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>>>>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>>>>Dao, which is none of those.
>>
>>>When people who have used "God talk" a lot (e.g. Europeans)
>>
>>When people who have used "Tao talk" a lot
no comment?
>>>get to the
>>>point where their "God" is not a person, but more like an impersonal
>>>power, that's pretty much the same thing as Dao.
>>
>>pretty much is not the same as.
>>A caterpiller does not know how it moves
>>or keeps track of all its legs. It simply begins
>>and all else follows. Dao doesn't know shit
>>but is in all sorts of shit. God, otoh, and\or
>>a particular element of the Universe does
>>know and information is extant regarding
>>exactly how many hairs are on a head
>>and when each sparrow falls. The spark
>>of the caterpiller may be Jim'spark of Tao.
>>It is quite different from Godsp'ark.
>>
>I don't think you're addressing my argument.
pretty much is not the same as?
> The knowing in the sense
>of listing is one of the things that's a fantasy about God, a human
>fantasy
perhaps yes. perhaps no. prehaps yer
fantasy is too fantastic for you to belive.
mebbe God exists and knows your thoughts.
mebbe Tao exists-without-existing and
doesn't give a shit about what you think.
>- but as the Christian philosopher thinks harder, or the
>Christian mystic gets some experience, those notions drop off,
speaking as a Christian philosopher\mystic
having had numinous experientials, those
n'oceans have not dropped off even in
teh slightest degree. And you? Are you a
born again Christian? Are you a Taoist?
Are you both? Are you neither?
>and
>what's left is ... well, pretty much the same thing as Dao.
and what's left is ... well, lots of stuff that isn't
even at all the same as Dao nor similar.
>>>And yet there IS a kind of personality to the universe; the Dao is
>>>"the way of things",
>>
>>zi ran, tzu-jan, is the nature of things.
>>Is Dao the same as Mother Nature?
>>She treats things as straw dogs. Everything
>>eats something on the food pyramid. It's a
>>kill-fest of turtles, all the way down.
>>
>
>Yup, and your point?
Some blind folk think an elephant
is the same as a rhino.
>>>a kind of personality, so that kind of pulls it
>>>towards the "God" camp.
>>
>>the genocidal, suicide bomber camp?
>>
>Huh? I've told you, that's the kind of thing that drops off as one
>gets closer to what's really behind this vague idea of "God".
God may be vague to a blind man.
Do you suppose God was vague to Jesus?
Do you call on Dao to heal the sick, or cure the lame?
Does Dao, with a bit of mud, bring eyesight
to the blind? Would Dao sacrifice a lamb
prior to the foundat'ions of Teh Earth?
> Same as
>personality begins to appear as one gets closer to what's really
>behind this vague idea of "Dao".
Perhaps to a blind man Dao is vague.
Was Cook Ting vague? Was the woodcarver
all that vague? Did the bugcatcher call on God
to help the critters up his stick?
>>>But in fact, the long and the short of the matter is that there's
>>>something utterly mysterious in all this.
>>
>>yu ming and wu ming, twain are marked One.
>>
>>>All these are either
>>>discussions about abstractions concocted by people who are guessing,
>>
>>either or? a limited pov.
>>These could be discussions about daojia.
>>
>Well, if you know, you don't have to guess and speculate.
blind men guess, and speculate;
seeing things as almost the same as
or similar to.
>>>or discussions about a genuine "experience"
Are you experienced?
How well do you know God?
Did Tao lead the Israelites out of Egypt
with a mighty hand? Did Dao stand as a pillar
of fire by night and a cloud by day? Do you
have faith in God? Or are stories just made
up to pass the time? Did Jesus rise from a
tomb? Was Joseph a tin man?
>>daojia may speak of an experience.
>>it may also speak of dao ke dao fei chang dao.
>>Is 'dao ke dao' a talk, or a walk? Either way
>>is it 'chang dao'? Apparently, knot?
>>
>Mainly an experience, or perhaps you could say a way of experiencing.
And God is a way of experiencing, iyo?
Is God a dao? For some Taoists God is simply
one of 10k things. Tao is prior th'air-two.
Are you God? Are you Tao?
>>>the living abstraction that is the universe
>>>taken as a Great Big Thing, of itself, by itself.
>>
>>Such a GBT is usually called Tod.
>>
>>>It's _all_ blind elephant-feeling -
>>
>>for you, this may be the extent of your 'experience'
>>whereas for others th'air is more, much m'ore.
>>
>You get your piece of the puzzle, I got mine.
fare nuf.
>>>God, Dao, the whole shebang.
>>>There's something there ... but we all get partial glimpses of it.
>>
>>ten thou sand things are t'here.
>>Elephants, rhinos, hippopotummyooses.
>>All three have big legs and big heads.
>>Some are unable to tell the difference.
>>
>
>There is no difference in one sense, there is a difference in another.
>Everything is the same in being unique.
Then God and Tao are unique
and in being unique they are not the same.
>>>So stop being so hard on all that God shit :-)
>>
>>When Elijah called down fire from heaven
>>he asked if "their" God was on the shitter.
>>If the story is true, God indeed exists.
just a story?
>>If Taoism is based in truth, Tao is prior to Ti
>>accordion to Taoist philosophy.
just a pov?
>>New Agers are a paradigm per do-zen.
>>-imbo
>
>- Guru George
>
>+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
>"Of course, any people always have the government they
>deserve, or the God they deserve.
or the Tao they deserve?
>It seems incredible
>that people could believe that God would speak from a
>high mountain only to tell them "no-nos".
Does Dao ever speak? It is incredible.
Who has believed our report?
>But many did,
>and some still do.
>Original sin, no.
>Original stupidity, yes."
have you ever seen two assholes
on an elephant?
Jaybuzin0000
>JB wrote:
>>George wrote:
>>>Jay wrote:
>>[...wrenching...]
>>
>>>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>>
>>okay.
>>
>>>Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
>>>similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
>>>various facts/things, is accidental.
>>
>>An elephant and a rhino may appear
>>to blind men to be the same critter.
>>Upon closer observation they are different.
>>From another order of magnitude they may
>>again appear to be similar\same. What are
>>they really, 'in fact'?
>>
>They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take.
then, it is granted t'hat
from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
what does New Age mean?
> One
>mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
was Kuo Hsiang objective enough?
>There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
>ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
>objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
can you measure Tao?
can you measure God?
are all unmeasureables the same?
can you measure the exact length of
the square root of two? or of pi? are they
thus the same?
>>> I was talking about things that
>>>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>>>reasoning - being in fact the same.
>>
>>In fact? Really?
>>Please define 'fact'.
>>Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
>>
>If you claim something is a fact, you are more or less claiming that
>the experiences one would expect of "it",
You mean, like go out and kill (a la Moses)
all the surrounding tribes? Or go and pick up
your cross and get yourself killed? Or say
fuck you to the emperor and play in the mud?
>from various "angles", will
>pan out just as the name you are using predicts they will. Nothing
>too complicated.
So a Taoist kills everybody? Or does the
Taoist pick up the first stone, having sinned not?
Or does the Taoist simply play in the mud?
>>Suppose you have a mystical experience
>>or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
>>How can you state, factually, that it is the
>>same experience as anyone else had?
>>I would assert quite the opposite.
>>Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
>>The facts are, each is unique; no matter
>>how similar or same they may abstractly
>>appear to blind men.
>
>But that's a cheap shot - of course they aren't exactly the same, they
>are simply of the same class.
They aren't even in the same stadium
much less the same schoolyard
knot even lasso teh same cl'ass.
> Every thing is unique, but they come in families.
The family of evangelists? The family of
suicide bombers? The family of sea turtles?
Do you deny t'hems th'air mysticalities?
>What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
burning bushes? changing water into wine?
sitting and forgetting?
>(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
>as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
Was Moses there? Was Jesus there?
Was Yin Hsi there when Lao Tzu left Teh country?
>And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
>there is only one mystical experience,
an interesting assert'ion.
Suppose we both have the same One
experience and the fruit of my tree tells me
to go out and kill the neighboring tribe
but yours tells you to get hung on a cross
while another tells them to go fishing.
Are they really the same tree giving rise
to the same fruit?
>though it has different
>shadings and "grades" of "depth" (one might say) because there is only
>one universe, one Being, one Thing here.
hmmm. killing. suicide. mud.
yep. tis the same All over and over.
>And the absence of Jay in
>Jay's experience, the absence of George in George's experience,
>reveals the Presence of this Great Big Thing in all its glory.
-glory be,
passinging bottomless
double chocolate stouts
in a bamboo grove
{:-])))
!
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>>misty wrote:
>>>jay wrote:
>>>>george wrote:
[...s]
>When being asked, "What is the Buddha," "Three jins of hemp," the
>master, Tung-shan, answered. How "same" is the Jakob Boehme's God, or
>the Ramana Maharshi's Self?
if I understand George's position,
take away all the culture, the hemp, the terms,
and anything else that's different, and they
are exactly the same!
>The internal essence,
>and the external appearance,
>
>partitioned thinking/observation?
to speak is to divide.
those that know this, know this.
when pointing toward an indivisible
it's been said that those that know don't.
>Are you saying that because every one does something their own ways,
>so their ways are Tao?
each way, to me, is a tao.
chang tao, to me, constantly remains
other than any particular way.
Arguments, such as george used,
hinge up on hypotheticals. The wrenching
of terms out of their natural contexts
and foisting them into sum other paradigm
is used to make a point. The point they make
isn't, imo, particularly a Taoist point. The
Taoists point in another direct'ion.
>Empirically, have no experience;
>analytically, cannot reason, ...
>
>Watching the wind blows,
the flag moves, the mind moves,
the spirit moves upon the face.
does dao move?
with\without
moving moving
clean cups
yunlong
> misty wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >>misty wrote:
> >>>jay wrote:
> >>>>george wrote:
> [...s]
>
> >When being asked, "What is the Buddha," "Three jins of hemp," the
> >master, Tung-shan, answered. How "same" is the Jakob Boehme's God, or
> >the Ramana Maharshi's Self?
>
> if I understand George's position,
> take away all the culture, the hemp, the terms,
> and anything else that's different, and they
> are exactly the same!
Yes, they are the same by default; without words, how can you tell the
difference?
>
> >The internal essence,
>
> >and the external appearance,
> >
> >partitioned thinking/observation?
>
> to speak is to divide.
so it is partitioned.
> those that know this, know this.
> when pointing toward an indivisible
> it's been said that those that know don't.
Yes, it has been said; like any smart aleck comment.
>
> >Are you saying that because every one does something their own ways,
> >so their ways are Tao?
>
> each way, to me, is a tao.
Yes, but Taoism is to find a tao that works as prescribed.
> chang tao, to me, constantly remains
> other than any particular way.
And this (above) view is holding a particular way,
>
> Arguments, such as george used,
> hinge up on hypotheticals. The wrenching
> of terms out of their natural contexts
> and foisting them into sum other paradigm
> is used to make a point.
as your hypothetical about his hypothetical,
> The point they make
> isn't, imo, particularly a Taoist point. The
> Taoists point in another direct'ion.
and missed its direction as it always points to the other direction,
as terms wrenching.
The Tao of "wrench" is to learn how to use a wrench properly so it
won't strip the thread.
Know which direction it threads?
>
> >Empirically, have no experience;
> >analytically, cannot reason, ...
> >
> >Watching the wind blows,
>
> the flag moves, the mind moves,
> the spirit moves upon the face.
> does dao move?
Yes,
>
> with\without
> moving moving
> clean cups
it moves like wind.
misty
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>> misty wrote:
>> >jay wrote:
>> >>misty wrote:
>> >>>jay wrote:
>> >>>>george wrote:
[...s]
>> >the Ramana Maharshi's Self?
>>
>> if I understand George's position,
>> take away all the culture, the hemp, the terms,
>> and anything else that's different, and they
>> are exactly the same!
>
>Yes, they are the same by default; without words, how can you tell the
>difference?
Without words,
can you tell the difference
between an elephant and a rhino?
Without words, differences still exist;
but it is difficult to "tell" or say what they are.
>> >The internal essence,
>>
>> >and the external appearance,
>> >
>> >partitioned thinking/observation?
>>
>> to speak is to divide.
>
>so it is partitioned.
Words divide. Without words, no telling.
>> those that know this, know this.
>> when pointing toward an indivisible
>> it's been said that those that know don't.
>
>Yes, it has been said; like any smart aleck comment.
People experience many things.
Some experience a flash of light and figure
that all flashes of light are the same. Others
may see differences between incandescence
and ultraviolet or flowerescence of other
wavelengths waving.
>> >Are you saying that because every one does something their own ways,
>> >so their ways are Tao?
>>
>> each way, to me, is a tao.
>
>Yes, but Taoism is to find a tao that works as prescribed.
Each situation is unique.
>> chang tao, to me, constantly remains
>> other than any particular way.
>
>And this (above) view is holding a particular way,
Paradoxically, yes, in away.
Change is constant. Relativity is absolute.
Skeptics may doubt doubt.
>> Arguments, such as george used,
>> hinge up on hypotheticals. The wrenching
>> of terms out of their natural contexts
>> and foisting them into sum other paradigm
>> is used to make a point.
>
>as your hypothetical about his hypothetical,
Infinitely regressive, as is yours about mine.
Axioms are given. What is taken for granted
in one system may be questioned by others.
Sometimes people agree and th'airin floats
communicat'ions of sorts.
>> The point they make
>> isn't, imo, particularly a Taoist point. The
>> Taoists point in another direct'ion.
>
>and missed its direction as it always points to the other direction,
>as terms wrenching.
Returning, recycling, recurring fu p'u.
>The Tao of "wrench" is to learn how to use a wrench properly so it
>won't strip the thread.
Is your God the sames as Tao?
>Know which direction it threads?
From a traditional\classical pov, a Ti wrench
is different from a Tao wrench. Some may say
that all wrenches are the same.
>> >Empirically, have no experience;
>> >analytically, cannot reason, ...
>> >
>> >Watching the wind blows,
>>
>> the flag moves, the mind moves,
>> the spirit moves upon the face.
>> does dao move?
>
>Yes,
the S'elf of Krishna may encourage Arjuna
as the G-d of Moses wiped out tribes.
Lao Tzu left the country, while Chuang Tzu
preferred to fish happily and wag
his tell in the mud.
Degrimlin
Without words,
can you tell the difference
between an elephant and a rhino?
Without words, differences still exist;
Clearly it would be dificult to say without words.. hense language but as for
"telling" differences requiring words i would disagree in some ways.. not all
though as in the case of technology advances are tied to words in an almost
un-seperable way.. tho in some cases the function of picking this or that (ie
telling differences) can be done on a level of questionable origin and can be
an automatic function. I am sure you are aware of this as in function from hub,
in the moment, in the zone... :-) jer
Jim Fish
> ...Tao is the process (or ideograph-literally "uniting way") for harmony
> with man and nature. Articulating this further: "The (Way)Tao can only be
> attained by the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way).
> One must become the (Way)Tao" --Prof. Raghavan Iyer (hi!k:). "Tao Te Ching:
> Lao Tzu".
>
jf:
I'm sure you know - since you helped me realize it - that I view Tao
as process. Yet in the quote - "The (Way)Tao can only be attained by
the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way). One
must become the (Way)Tao" - there seems an implication that only
(hu)mankind can attain Tao through process.
I tend to accept that most (all?) other creatures are comfortable in
the Way but humans have the ability to move away from (their) nature
and so perhaps need a guide like the TTC.
My question is this: Hypothetically, if God/gods exist wouldn't they
be subject to the same problem as humans?
Guru George
wrote:
>GG wrote:
>>JB wrote:
>>>George wrote:
>>>>Jay wrote:
>>>[...wrenching...]
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>>>
>>>okay.
>>>
>>>>Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
>>>>similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
>>>>various facts/things, is accidental.
>>>
>>>An elephant and a rhino may appear
>>>to blind men to be the same critter.
>>>Upon closer observation they are different.
>>>From another order of magnitude they may
>>>again appear to be similar\same. What are
>>>they really, 'in fact'?
>>>
>>They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take.
>
>then, it is granted t'hat
>from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
>why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
>what does New Age mean?
>
Depends what you mean by "Taoist perspective". If you mean the
perspective of someone who's thinking about Dao and God, no. If you
mean someone who's experienced Dao, and someone else who's experienced
God, they are the same, and the two will recognise each other as
siblings.
>> One
>>mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
>
>was Kuo Hsiang objective enough?
>
What does he have to do with anything?
>>There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
>>ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
>>objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
>
>can you measure Tao?
>can you measure God?
>are all unmeasureables the same?
>can you measure the exact length of
>the square root of two? or of pi? are they
>thus the same?
>
So many questions, not enough time :-)
>>>> I was talking about things that
>>>>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>>>>reasoning - being in fact the same.
>>>
>>>In fact? Really?
>>>Please define 'fact'.
>>>Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
>>>
>>If you claim something is a fact, you are more or less claiming that
>>the experiences one would expect of "it",
>
>You mean, like go out and kill (a la Moses)
>all the surrounding tribes? Or go and pick up
>your cross and get yourself killed? Or say
>fuck you to the emperor and play in the mud?
>
>>from various "angles", will
>>pan out just as the name you are using predicts they will. Nothing
>>too complicated.
>
>So a Taoist kills everybody? Or does the
>Taoist pick up the first stone, having sinned not?
>Or does the Taoist simply play in the mud?
>
You're not responding to my argument, so far as I can see, but going
off on a digression, and attacking some kind of strawman of your own
devising - which is fine, but, as I say, I'm afraid I don't have
enough time to follow all your digressions, interesting though they
might be in themselves.
>>>Suppose you have a mystical experience
>>>or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
>>>How can you state, factually, that it is the
>>>same experience as anyone else had?
>>>I would assert quite the opposite.
>>>Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
>>>The facts are, each is unique; no matter
>>>how similar or same they may abstractly
>>>appear to blind men.
>>
>>But that's a cheap shot - of course they aren't exactly the same, they
>>are simply of the same class.
>
>They aren't even in the same stadium
>much less the same schoolyard
>knot even lasso teh same cl'ass.
>
I've just given you an argument for why they are - if you disagree,
give me a counter argument, not more questions :-)
>> Every thing is unique, but they come in families.
>
>The family of evangelists? The family of
>suicide bombers? The family of sea turtles?
>Do you deny t'hems th'air mysticalities?
>
>>What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
>
>burning bushes? changing water into wine?
>sitting and forgetting?
>
Actually, now that you mention it, some folks have interpreted the
first two kinds of things as coded references to the last kind of
thing. I doubt that's applicable in all cases, though I don't doubt
it's applicable in some. The rest is mere religion as part of the
rubbish of the ages - a mere psychological or sociological phenomenon,
just more meme madness.
>>(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
>>as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
>
>Was Moses there? Was Jesus there?
>Was Yin Hsi there when Lao Tzu left Teh country?
>
>>And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
>>there is only one mystical experience,
>
>an interesting assert'ion.
>Suppose we both have the same One
>experience and the fruit of my tree tells me
>to go out and kill the neighboring tribe
>but yours tells you to get hung on a cross
>while another tells them to go fishing.
>Are they really the same tree giving rise
>to the same fruit?
>
Won't happen. This experience won't "tell" you to kill anything,
etc., etc. Nothing changes - I mean, you don't turn into Clark Kent
or grow horns or anything.
>>though it has different
>>shadings and "grades" of "depth" (one might say) because there is only
>>one universe, one Being, one Thing here.
>hmmm. killing. suicide. mud.
>yep. tis the same All over and over.
>
>>And the absence of Jay in
>>Jay's experience, the absence of George in George's experience,
>>reveals the Presence of this Great Big Thing in all its glory.
>
>-glory be,
>passinging bottomless
>double chocolate stouts
>in a bamboo grove
>{:-])))
- Guru George
Guru George
wrote:
>GG wrote:
>>JB wrote:
>>>George wrote:
>>>>Jay wrote:
>>>[...wrenching...]
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>>>
>>>okay.
>>>
>>>>Presuming "wrench" is some kind of bird, stamp, coin, etc., etc., any
>>>>similarity between ink on page, or sound, or electrons, and the
>>>>various facts/things, is accidental.
>>>
>>>An elephant and a rhino may appear
>>>to blind men to be the same critter.
>>>Upon closer observation they are different.
>>>From another order of magnitude they may
>>>again appear to be similar\same. What are
>>>they really, 'in fact'?
>>>
>>They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take.
>
>then, it is granted t'hat
>from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
>why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
>what does New Age mean?
>
Depends what you mean by "Taoist perspective". If you mean the
perspective of someone who's thinking about Dao and God, no. If you
mean someone who's experienced Dao, and someone else who's experienced
God, they are the same, and the two will recognise each other as
siblings.
>> One
>>mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
>
>was Kuo Hsiang objective enough?
>
What does he have to do with anything?
>>There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
>>ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
>>objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
>
>can you measure Tao?
>can you measure God?
>are all unmeasureables the same?
>can you measure the exact length of
>the square root of two? or of pi? are they
>thus the same?
>
So many questions, not enough time :-)
>>>> I was talking about things that
>>>>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>>>>reasoning - being in fact the same.
>>>
>>>In fact? Really?
>>>Please define 'fact'.
>>>Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
>>>
>>If you claim something is a fact, you are more or less claiming that
>>the experiences one would expect of "it",
>
>You mean, like go out and kill (a la Moses)
>all the surrounding tribes? Or go and pick up
>your cross and get yourself killed? Or say
>fuck you to the emperor and play in the mud?
>
>>from various "angles", will
>>pan out just as the name you are using predicts they will. Nothing
>>too complicated.
>
>So a Taoist kills everybody? Or does the
>Taoist pick up the first stone, having sinned not?
>Or does the Taoist simply play in the mud?
>
You're not responding to my argument, so far as I can see, but going
off on a digression, and attacking some kind of strawman of your own
devising - which is fine, but, as I say, I'm afraid I don't have
enough time to follow all your digressions, interesting though they
might be in themselves.
>>>Suppose you have a mystical experience
>>>or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
>>>How can you state, factually, that it is the
>>>same experience as anyone else had?
>>>I would assert quite the opposite.
>>>Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
>>>The facts are, each is unique; no matter
>>>how similar or same they may abstractly
>>>appear to blind men.
>>
>>But that's a cheap shot - of course they aren't exactly the same, they
>>are simply of the same class.
>
>They aren't even in the same stadium
>much less the same schoolyard
>knot even lasso teh same cl'ass.
>
I've just given you an argument for why they are - if you disagree,
give me a counter argument, not more questions :-)
>> Every thing is unique, but they come in families.
>
>The family of evangelists? The family of
>suicide bombers? The family of sea turtles?
>Do you deny t'hems th'air mysticalities?
>
>>What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
>
>burning bushes? changing water into wine?
>sitting and forgetting?
>
Actually, now that you mention it, some folks have interpreted the
first two kinds of things as coded references to the last kind of
thing. I doubt that's applicable in all cases, though I don't doubt
it's applicable in some. The rest is mere religion as part of the
rubbish of the ages - a mere psychological or sociological phenomenon,
just more meme madness.
>>(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
>>as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
>
>Was Moses there? Was Jesus there?
>Was Yin Hsi there when Lao Tzu left Teh country?
>
>>And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
>>there is only one mystical experience,
>
>an interesting assert'ion.
>Suppose we both have the same One
>experience and the fruit of my tree tells me
>to go out and kill the neighboring tribe
>but yours tells you to get hung on a cross
>while another tells them to go fishing.
>Are they really the same tree giving rise
>to the same fruit?
>
Won't happen. This experience won't "tell" you to kill anything,
etc., etc. Nothing changes - I mean, you don't turn into Clark Kent
or grow horns or anything.
>>though it has different
>>shadings and "grades" of "depth" (one might say) because there is only
>>one universe, one Being, one Thing here.
>hmmm. killing. suicide. mud.
>yep. tis the same All over and over.
>
>>And the absence of Jay in
>>Jay's experience, the absence of George in George's experience,
>>reveals the Presence of this Great Big Thing in all its glory.
>
>-glory be,
>passinging bottomless
>double chocolate stouts
>in a bamboo grove
>{:-])))
- Guru George
Guru George
wrote:
>GG wrote:
>>JB wrote:
>>>gg surmised and muge'd:
>>>>rs stated a Taoist posit'ion:
>>>>>Please do not equate god and Dao.
>>>>>Also Dao is not "it".
>>>
>>>TTC 4 is an axiom. In the CT are stories
>>>as well as in Kuo Hsiang's commentaries.
>>>Please define Taoism. It is not New Age.
>
>well?
>
Oh fuss and pother! Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
wasn't he a confucian? "Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator (the context is about
the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing), I'm talking about a
more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God - something that
looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
>>>>>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>>>>>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>>>>>Dao, which is none of those.
>>>
>>>>When people who have used "God talk" a lot (e.g. Europeans)
>>>
>>>When people who have used "Tao talk" a lot
>
>no comment?
>
What's to comment? I'm not talking about an omnipotent, benevolent,
singularly sentient, supernatural being. That's a kind of fantasy, or
at best something like an "astral" creation, or the avatar of some
realised being become historical (yet persisting on the "astral").
(If you believe in that sort of thing - which I'm agnostic about,
though wouldn't be fazed if it were true.)
The God talk eventually sloughs off the crap, the wishful thinking,
the father/mother fantasies, etc., etc. There's "something" at the
ROOT of things - it's deeply unfathomable, highly abstract to talk
about, but it does have a _character_, a thus-so-ness, that is like
its "personality", that kind of "speaks" to you. And this is the echo
of the God talk, the bit about God talk that's true (disregarding the
"astral" business for the moment). It's like there's a faint perfume
of God-ness in the Dao, but there's sense in the ordinary mind
thinking of the Dao as more of an abstract, totally impersonal thing -
it's probably less distracting for the mind, and makes meditation
easier, for some kinds of intelligences.
>>>>get to the
>>>>point where their "God" is not a person, but more like an impersonal
>>>>power, that's pretty much the same thing as Dao.
>>>
>>>pretty much is not the same as.
>>>A caterpiller does not know how it moves
>>>or keeps track of all its legs. It simply begins
>>>and all else follows. Dao doesn't know shit
>>>but is in all sorts of shit. God, otoh, and\or
>>>a particular element of the Universe does
>>>know and information is extant regarding
>>>exactly how many hairs are on a head
>>>and when each sparrow falls. The spark
>>>of the caterpiller may be Jim'spark of Tao.
>>>It is quite different from Godsp'ark.
>>>
>>I don't think you're addressing my argument.
>
>pretty much is not the same as?
>
Again, I'm not talking about the Demiurge, some "creator" of the
visible world. I'm talking about the God whose flesh and blood this
world IS.
>> The knowing in the sense
>>of listing is one of the things that's a fantasy about God, a human
>>fantasy
>
>perhaps yes. perhaps no. prehaps yer
>fantasy is too fantastic for you to belive.
>mebbe God exists and knows your thoughts.
>mebbe Tao exists-without-existing and
>doesn't give a shit about what you think.
>
Whether there are various "astral" phenomena - either vast
congolmerates of coherent patterns in the "stuff" of things, that in
some sense rule and control things, is an interesting question, as is
the question whether there's one biggest of such. But the long lived
Gods, even up to Brahma, are as chaff in the wind to the enlightened
mind, which understands itself to be THAT which contains all of them,
even the biggest, as something both infinitely large and infinitely
small, neither infinitely large nor infinitely small, etc. And that
deep whatchamacallit, whateveritis, is what many God-fearing folks
have (eventually) understood by the term "God" too. (I say
eventually, because it does take a bit of maturity to understand this
:-)
>>- but as the Christian philosopher thinks harder, or the
>>Christian mystic gets some experience, those notions drop off,
>
>speaking as a Christian philosopher\mystic
>having had numinous experientials, those
>n'oceans have not dropped off even in
>teh slightest degree. And you? Are you a
>born again Christian? Are you a Taoist?
>Are you both? Are you neither?
>
Both, neither, schmothe, schmeither.
Anything that's an experience of a "God" that's outside you, and not
you, is not what I'm talking about. Any experience of "God" where
"you" also exist, is not what I'm talking about.
>>and
>>what's left is ... well, pretty much the same thing as Dao.
>
>and what's left is ... well, lots of stuff that isn't
>even at all the same as Dao nor similar.
>
But my dear boy, all _that_ stuff's neither here nore there! :-)
>>>>And yet there IS a kind of personality to the universe; the Dao is
>>>>"the way of things",
>>>
>>>zi ran, tzu-jan, is the nature of things.
>>>Is Dao the same as Mother Nature?
>>>She treats things as straw dogs. Everything
>>>eats something on the food pyramid. It's a
>>>kill-fest of turtles, all the way down.
>>>
>>
>>Yup, and your point?
>
>Some blind folk think an elephant
>is the same as a rhino.
>
And some people make mountains out of molehills.
>>>>a kind of personality, so that kind of pulls it
>>>>towards the "God" camp.
>>>
>>>the genocidal, suicide bomber camp?
>>>
>>Huh? I've told you, that's the kind of thing that drops off as one
>>gets closer to what's really behind this vague idea of "God".
>
>God may be vague to a blind man.
>Do you suppose God was vague to Jesus?
I don't believe in Jesus - I think he's a made-up god. Either that or
I'm Jesus, you're Jesus, and our pet cat is Jesus - Chrestos,
anointed, perfected, God made flesh, the One made flesh.
>Do you call on Dao to heal the sick, or cure the lame?
>Does Dao, with a bit of mud, bring eyesight
>to the blind? Would Dao sacrifice a lamb
>prior to the foundat'ions of Teh Earth?
>
Oh brother! Dao is more low key, and not quite so melodramatic.
>> Same as
>>personality begins to appear as one gets closer to what's really
>>behind this vague idea of "Dao".
>
>Perhaps to a blind man Dao is vague.
>Was Cook Ting vague? Was the woodcarver
>all that vague? Did the bugcatcher call on God
>to help the critters up his stick?
>
Obscure, the idea is obscure and elusive. De is the thing you're
talking about that's brightly manifest, sharp as a pin, apt to every
circumstance. (Incidentally, for you Buberians out there, De is
equivalent to the sincere "I-Thou" relation. This firm attention to
what's happening by both halves of what's happening is how the two
halves of the puzzle disappear, to leave ... )
>>>>But in fact, the long and the short of the matter is that there's
>>>>something utterly mysterious in all this.
>>>
>>>yu ming and wu ming, twain are marked One.
>>>
>>>>All these are either
>>>>discussions about abstractions concocted by people who are guessing,
>>>
>>>either or? a limited pov.
>>>These could be discussions about daojia.
>>>
>>Well, if you know, you don't have to guess and speculate.
>
>blind men guess, and speculate;
>seeing things as almost the same as
>or similar to.
>
They don't see anything - they're blind. But they are capable of
feeling the correct distinctions well enough, and not stupid - they
just don't have a "synoptic" all-at-once grasp of the thing the way
vision gives you.
>>>>or discussions about a genuine "experience"
>
>Are you experienced?
Yes (I might as well come out of the closet :-) I am not in that
state now, but I have known it - about half a dozen times as a child.
>How well do you know God?
For those brief moments, I was God, very God of God. There was no
difference between me and anything else, because I realised there's no
me, but just something indescribable in words.
>Did Tao lead the Israelites out of Egypt
>with a mighty hand? Did Dao stand as a pillar
>of fire by night and a cloud by day? Do you
>have faith in God? Or are stories just made
>up to pass the time?
Mostly - to indoctrinate, to comfort, to feed insecurities, to
justify, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
>Did Jesus rise from a
>tomb?
No, he didn't exist. He's like William Tell - a character in a story
who people very quickly (in historical terms) came to believe existed.
>Was Joseph a tin man?
>
Eh?
>>>daojia may speak of an experience.
>>>it may also speak of dao ke dao fei chang dao.
>>>Is 'dao ke dao' a talk, or a walk? Either way
>>>is it 'chang dao'? Apparently, knot?
>>>
>>Mainly an experience, or perhaps you could say a way of experiencing.
>
>And God is a way of experiencing, iyo?
God is pure Being, as is the Dao - it's just that there's a flavour, a
certain kind of quaint limitedness to things, that's their character,
and that's the "personality" aspect - that's what people have meant
by "God" who haven't been talking about the Demiurge (should such
exist), or lesser Gods (should they exist).
>Is God a dao? For some Taoists God is simply
>one of 10k things. Tao is prior th'air-two.
>Are you God? Are you Tao?
>
Both, neither, etc.
[snip]
>>>ten thou sand things are t'here.
>>>Elephants, rhinos, hippopotummyooses.
>>>All three have big legs and big heads.
>>>Some are unable to tell the difference.
>>>
>>
>>There is no difference in one sense, there is a difference in another.
>>Everything is the same in being unique.
>
>Then God and Tao are unique
>and in being unique they are not the same.
>
Neither God nor Dao is a thing, strictly speaking. I was just using
things as analogies. So there :-p
>>>>So stop being so hard on all that God shit :-)
>>>
>>>When Elijah called down fire from heaven
>>>he asked if "their" God was on the shitter.
>>>If the story is true, God indeed exists.
>
>just a story?
>
Probably.
>>>If Taoism is based in truth, Tao is prior to Ti
>>>accordion to Taoist philosophy.
>
>just a pov?
>
Absolutely - and pretty heavily contextual at that.
>>>New Agers are a paradigm per do-zen.
What's this with New Agers? You trying to make yourself special or
something boy?
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
yunlong
> misty wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> misty wrote:
> >> >jay wrote:
> >> >>misty wrote:
> >> >>>jay wrote:
> >> >>>>george wrote:
> [...s]
> >>>How "same" is the Jakob Boehme's God, or
> >> >the Ramana Maharshi's Self?
> >>
> >> if I understand George's position,
> >> take away all the culture, the hemp, the terms,
> >> and anything else that's different, and they
> >> are exactly the same!
> >
> >Yes, they are the same by default; without words, how can you tell the
> >difference?
>
> Without words,
> can you tell the difference
> between an elephant and a rhino?
Are you comparing "Tao vs. God" as "elephant vs. rhino"? Not knowing
neither for sure—invalid question.
Yes, five senses remain distinguishable.
Without words, how can you tell an elephant is "elephant"?
> Without words, differences still exist;
Differences exist only in parts—i.e. partitioned.
> but it is difficult to "tell" or say what they are.
Not really, five senses remain distinguishable.
>
> >> >The internal essence,
>
> >> >and the external appearance,
> >> >
> >> >partitioned thinking/observation?
> >>
> >> to speak is to divide.
> >
> >so it is partitioned.
>
> Words divide. Without words, no telling.
When someone kick you in the butt, do you feel the kick/pain? Can you
tell?
>
> >> those that know this, know this.
> >> when pointing toward an indivisible
> >> it's been said that those that know don't.
> >
> >Yes, it has been said; like any smart aleck comment.
>
> People experience many things.
> Some experience a flash of light and figure
> that all flashes of light are the same. Others
> may see differences between incandescence
> and ultraviolet or flowerescence of other
> wavelengths waving.
Only in partitioned thinking; otherwise,
light is light?
>
> >> >Are you saying that because every one does something their own ways,
> >> >so their ways are Tao?
> >>
> >> each way, to me, is a tao.
> >
> >Yes, but Taoism is to find a tao that works as prescribed.
>
> Each situation is unique.
Some gets there,
>
> >> chang tao, to me, constantly remains
> >> other than any particular way.
> >
> >And this (above) view is holding a particular way,
>
> Paradoxically, yes, in away.
> Change is constant. Relativity is absolute.
> Skeptics may doubt doubt.
some just gets lost in the words.
>
> >> Arguments, such as george used,
> >> hinge up on hypotheticals. The wrenching
> >> of terms out of their natural contexts
> >> and foisting them into sum other paradigm
> >> is used to make a point.
> >
> >as your hypothetical about his hypothetical,
>
> Infinitely regressive, as is yours about mine.
> Axioms are given.
Like a religion's God?
> What is taken for granted
> in one system may be questioned by others.
Yes, what makes "axioms are given" true?
> Sometimes people agree and th'airin floats
> communicat'ions of sorts.
Not if the words being used have no meaning.
>
> >> The point they make
> >> isn't, imo, particularly a Taoist point. The
> >> Taoists point in another direct'ion.
> >
> >and missed its direction as it always points to the other direction,
> >as terms wrenching.
>
> Returning, recycling, recurring fu p'u.
Garbage dump.
>
> >The Tao of "wrench" is to learn how to use a wrench properly so it
> >won't strip the thread.
>
> Is your God the sames as Tao?
Ain't got no God, and no religion, too.
>
> >Know which direction it threads?
>
> From a traditional\classical pov,
Whose traditional/classical pov is that?
> a Ti wrench
> is different from a Tao wrench.
Huh?
> Some may say
> that all wrenches are the same.
Wonder who is so ignorant to make such a statement.
>
> >> >Empirically, have no experience;
> >> >analytically, cannot reason, ...
> >> >
> >> >Watching the wind blows,
> >>
> >> the flag moves, the mind moves,
> >> the spirit moves upon the face.
> >> does dao move?
> >
> >Yes,
>
> the S'elf of Krishna may encourage Arjuna
> as the G-d of Moses wiped out tribes.
The giving axioms failed.
> Lao Tzu left the country, while Chuang Tzu
> preferred to fish happily and wag
> his tell in the mud.
Not until he has to borrow money for living.
>
> >> with\without
> >> moving moving
> >> clean cups
> >
> >it moves like wind.
As well, the flight of the butterfly,
misty
Jaybuzin0000
>Jay wrote:
>>GG wrote:
>>>JB wrote:
>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>Jay wrote:
>>>They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take.
>>
>>then, it is granted t'hat
>>from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
>>why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
>>what does New Age mean?
>>
>Depends what you mean by "Taoist perspective". If you mean the
>perspective of someone who's thinking about Dao and God, no.
So you grant, from the get-go, two points.
>If you
>mean someone who's experienced Dao, and someone else who's experienced
>God, they are the same, and the two will recognise each other as
>siblings.
I recognize Hitler and Moses as siblings.
I've experienced Dao and God and they are
not the same. If two blind men experience
different critters and find similarities, does that
entail that the critters are the same?
>>> One
>>>mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
>>
>>was Kuo Hsiang objective enough?
>>
>What does he have to do with anything?
His "Taoist" perspective was that Tao isn't God.
Maybe he didn't experience _your_ God?
Maybe you didn't experience *his* Tao?
>>>There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
>>>ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
>>>objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
>>
>>can you measure Tao?
>>can you measure God?
>>are all unmeasureables the same?
>>can you measure the exact length of
>>the square root of two? or of pi? are they
>>thus the same?
>>
>So many questions, not enough time :-)
Beyond time and space rest m'any
white-horses of different colours.
>>>>> I was talking about things that
>>>>>look and sound very different - and seem different to abstract
>>>>>reasoning - being in fact the same.
>>>>
>>>>In fact? Really?
>>>>Please define 'fact'.
>>>>Is it, like a wrench, or a rhino?
>>>>
>>>If you claim something is a fact, you are more or less claiming that
>>>the experiences one would expect of "it",
>>
>>You mean, like go out and kill (a la Moses)
>>all the surrounding tribes? Or go and pick up
>>your cross and get yourself killed? Or say
>>fuck you to the emperor and play in the mud?
>>
>>>from various "angles", will
>>>pan out just as the name you are using predicts they will. Nothing
>>>too complicated.
>>
>>So a Taoist kills everybody? Or does the
>>Taoist pick up the first stone, having sinned not?
>>Or does the Taoist simply play in the mud?
>>
>You're not responding to my argument, so far as I can see, but going
>off on a digression, and attacking some kind of strawman of your own
>devising - which is fine, but, as I say, I'm afraid I don't have
>enough time to follow all your digressions, interesting though they
>might be in themselves.
Your "fact" is simply not a "fact" other
than the fact of your asserting it is. If two or
more people have the _same_ experience or
experience the _same_ thing, how is it that
such varied fruits grow out of it? Jesus found
love. Moses found genocide. Buddha shined
on with flower-power. Lao Tzu left the land.
If they all experience the _same_ thing, then
why didn't Moses get himself cruicified? Why
didn't Jesus overthrow the establishment? For
what reason didn't Lao Tzu stick around?
Not enough time?
>>>>Suppose you have a mystical experience
>>>>or satori or flower-power or w'hatEver.
>>>>How can you state, factually, that it is the
>>>>same experience as anyone else had?
>>>>I would assert quite the opposite.
>>>>Much as is a rainbow, none are the same.
>>>>The facts are, each is unique; no matter
>>>>how similar or same they may abstractly
>>>>appear to blind men.
>>>
>>>But that's a cheap shot - of course they aren't exactly the same, they
>>>are simply of the same class.
>>
>>They aren't even in the same stadium
>>much less the same schoolyard
>>knot even lasso teh same cl'ass.
>>
>I've just given you an argument for why they are - if you disagree,
>give me a counter argument, not more questions :-)
You don't seam to follow m'eye th'inklings.
It could be said that exercise is a class. By
such argumenting, running and swimming are
the same thing. But the two are not the same
experience in many respects. Chuang Tzu
felt that he and Heaven and Earth were born
at the same time. Jesus felt he was slain prior
to and mud being slung. Perhaps the same sort
of class, except one gets himself killed and the
other prefers to drag his tail with turtles. If a
class is the same class, the outcome would be
much more the same instead of simply similar
in some respects, eh?
>>> Every thing is unique, but they come in families.
>>
>>The family of evangelists? The family of
>>suicide bombers? The family of sea turtles?
>>Do you deny t'hems th'air mysticalities?
>>
>>>What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
>>
>>burning bushes? changing water into wine?
>>sitting and forgetting?
>>
>Actually, now that you mention it, some folks have interpreted the
>first two kinds of things as coded references to the last kind of
>thing. I doubt that's applicable in all cases, though I don't doubt
>it's applicable in some. The rest is mere religion as part of the
>rubbish of the ages - a mere psychological or sociological phenomenon,
>just more meme madness.
Dismissing heartfelt mystical experiences
of others that don't fit into your paradigm is
to throw out the baby with the bath water.
>>>(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
>>>as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
>>
>>Was Moses there? Was Jesus there?
>>Was Yin Hsi there when Lao Tzu left Teh country?
>>
>>>And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
>>>there is only one mystical experience,
>>
>>an interesting assert'ion.
>>Suppose we both have the same One
>>experience and the fruit of my tree tells me
>>to go out and kill the neighboring tribe
>>but yours tells you to get hung on a cross
>>while another tells them to go fishing.
>>Are they really the same tree giving rise
>>to the same fruit?
>>
>Won't happen. This experience won't "tell" you to kill anything,
>etc., etc. Nothing changes - I mean, you don't turn into Clark Kent
>or grow horns or anything.
In a mystical fog, Tao may look like God.
Perhaps the sun is shining in mudville.
Mebbe rugby is the same as baseball.
Some experience water and find it fine.
Some experience another liquid and
think it is the same as water.
-a pov
rick
>
> Jay said:
> >then, it is granted t'hat
> >from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
> >why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
> >what does New Age mean?
> >
> Depends what you mean by "Taoist perspective". If you mean the
> perspective of someone who's thinking about Dao and God, no. If you
> mean someone who's experienced Dao, and someone else who's experienced
> God, they are the same, and the two will recognise each other as
> siblings.
Dao is not a deity.
Never has been.
Never will be.
Dao and 'god' are not the same thing.
Degrimlin
Dao and 'god' are not the same thing.<<ric
Dao is?
Never?
Never has been?
Never will be?
Dao is?
God is?
?????????????????? = ?/?=?
? is ?
rick
>
>
> Oh fuss and pother! Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
> wasn't he a confucian? "Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
> the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator (the context is about
> the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing), I'm talking about a
> more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God - something that
> looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
Dao, which is none of those.
> I'm not talking about an omnipotent, benevolent,
> singularly sentient, supernatural being. That's a kind of fantasy, or
> at best something like an "astral" creation, or the avatar of some
> realised being become historical (yet persisting on the "astral").
> (If you believe in that sort of thing - which I'm agnostic about,
> though wouldn't be fazed if it were true.)
>
> The God talk eventually sloughs off the crap, the wishful thinking,
> the father/mother fantasies, etc., etc. There's "something" at the
> ROOT of things - it's deeply unfathomable, highly abstract to talk
> about, but it does have a _character_, a thus-so-ness, that is like
> its "personality", that kind of "speaks" to you. And this is the echo
> of the God talk, the bit about God talk that's true (disregarding the
> "astral" business for the moment). It's like there's a faint perfume
> of God-ness in the Dao, but there's sense in the ordinary mind
> thinking of the Dao as more of an abstract, totally impersonal thing -
> it's probably less distracting for the mind, and makes meditation
> easier, for some kinds of intelligences.
>
If you are talking about tao you are talking about tao.
If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
There is no middle ground. There is no wimpy waffling around it.
There is no 'god-ness in Tao.
Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first.
> Again, I'm not talking about the Demiurge, some "creator" of the
> visible world. I'm talking about the God whose flesh and blood this
> world IS.
>
That is a contadiction to what you said you're not talking about.
How does a 'world' get created out of the 'flesh and blood'
of a 'god' without somekind of 'divine' intervention.
This world is created from the dust of exploded stars.
The universe creates itself and the process is know as Dao.
(see Martin Palmer text below)
>
> God is pure Being, as is the Dao
Dao is not a being. 'God' is a deity. Dao is not a deity.
The following is a re-post :
I think Martin Palmer provides a good summary of ancient thought
concerning tao and diety in the book, "The Elements of Taoism".
" In Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching, we are told that the Tao is the
origin of everything. this is expressed thus:
The Tao gives birth to the One;
The One gives birth to the Two;
The Two gives birth to the Three;
The Three gives birth to all things.
Tao is often called 'The Way' in translation. this does not really do
justice to its cosmological depth of meaning. In its manifestation
through the words of sages such as Lao Tzu (the Tao Te Ching),
Chuang Tzu (his book is named after him) or Lieh Tzu (likewise),
through the path trodden by sages and immortals and so forth,
it is indeed a Way, a path. But Taoism teaches that it is more than
that. Tao is the ultimate source of all, the origin before origin and
the uncreated which creates everything. The Tao Te Ching spells this
out clearly. Chapter 32 talks of the Tao as being forever indefinable.
It is the power beyond power and it flows through the world, like a
river heading to the sea, back to its origin. Chuang Tzu says:
'The Tao has reality and evidence, but no action and no form.
It may be transmitted but cannot be received. It may be attained
but cannot be seen. It exists in and through itself. It existed
before Heaven and Earth, and indeed for all eternity. It caused
the gods to be divine and the world to be produced.'
(Chauang Tzu, Chapter 6.)
For Taoists, the Tao is the eternal ultimate, beyond even Unity and
Oneness. As such, it is also beyond language, a point which Chuang Tzu
makes time and time again in his writings. Thus we should turn from
these attempts to express the inexpressible, to its more visible
aspects, the Unity and interrelatedness of all life and the Way by
which Tao moves and creates both the material and spiritual worlds.
What we have to discard is the concept that Tao is in any sense a
creator god. In later Taoism, the Three Pure Ones of Taoism came to
symbolize the personification of these Taoist principles, but were
intended to point the way rather than be Creators. The Tao creates
simply because it is the actual essance of all things. It does not set
out to 'create' but things emerge as a result of Tao. It is what the
Tao Te Ching refers to as the 'natural way'. The great Taoist
commentator of the third and forth centuries AD, Kuo Hsiang, put it
thus:
'But let us ask whether there is a Creator or not. If not, how
can he create things? If there is, he is capable of materializing
all the forms. Therefore before we can talk about creation,
we must understand the fact that all forms materialize by
themselves. If we go through the entire realm of existance,
we shall see that there is nothing, not even the penumbra,
that does not transform itself beyond the phenomenal world.
Hence everything creates itself without any direction of any
Creator. Since things create themselves, they are unconditioned.
This is the norm of the universe.' -
(Commentary on Chuang Tzu, sec, 2, 2:46-47 - quoted in Bary,
Sources of Chinese Tradition.)
. " - end of quote from, "The Elements of Taoism, by Martin Palmer.
also...
" At the heart of the Way is the notion that Humanity needs to be
in accord with and flow with the Way. This means recognizing that we
are but part of something much greater and more significant. It is in
contradistiction to the western model of reality which posits God as
the ultimate, but gives Humanity a nearest-to-God role in the universe.
In the West, meaning is given to the rest of creation through human use
of it. This is the reverse of the Chinese and especially the Taoist
rick
> >>Dao is not a deity.
> Never has been.
> Never will be.
> Dao and 'god' are not the same thing.<<ric
>
> Dao is?
> Never?
> Never has been?
> Never will be?
> Dao is?
> God is?
> ?????????????????? = ?/?=?
> ? is ?
You couldn't have said it better yourself.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you have no clue.
Degrimlin
Thanks for letting everyone know that you have no clue.<ric
Correct. We have something in common after all.
Degrimlin
Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
Ah Ha! we're coming along... right nicely...
Now we have excluded gods from places not west. Eastern gods and nothern gods
an southern gods... not sure about north western... i'll get a vote on them....
otherwise feel free no to equate these excluded gods (non western) in a manner
consistant to the known attributes of god and of course feel free to compare
with the absolute known attributes of tao. now if that fails i would suggest
you consider comparing with the unknown attributes of both.
Degrimlin
If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
There is no middle ground.
There is no wimpy waffling around it.
There is no 'god-ness in Tao.
Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <<
And you can prove this long list of assertions Rick? Or was you thinking the
readers should just assume you know what you assert? Please state a few facts
to base this fantasy of your on stabe ground.
rick
>
> >If you are talking about tao you are talking about tao.
> If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
> There is no middle ground.
> There is no wimpy waffling around it.
> There is no 'god-ness' in Tao.
> Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
> benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
> Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <<
>
> And you can prove this long list of assertions Rick? Or was you thinking the
> readers should just assume you know what you assert?
Does reality scare you?
> Please state a few facts
> to base this fantasy of your on stabe ground.
The great Taoist
commentator of the third and forth centuries AD, Kuo Hsiang, put it
thus:
'But let us ask whether there is a Creator or not. If not, how
can he create things? If there is, he is capable of materializing
all the forms. Therefore before we can talk about creation,
we must understand the fact that all forms materialize by
themselves. If we go through the entire realm of existance,
we shall see that there is nothing, not even the penumbra,
that does not transform itself beyond the phenomenal world.
Hence everything creates itself without any direction of any
Creator. Since things create themselves, they are unconditioned.
This is the norm of the universe.' -
(Commentary on Chuang Tzu, sec, 2, 2:46-47 - quoted in Bary,
Sources of Chinese Tradition.)
Chuang Tzu says:
rick
>
> >There is no 'god-ness' in Tao.
> Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
> benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
> Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <ric
>
> Ah Ha! we're coming along... right nicely...
> Now we have excluded gods from places not west.
Yo, moron, that is why 'western' is in single quotes.
It is use to portray the fact that there is a distict
difference between 'western' and 'eastern' thought.
" At the heart of the Way is the notion that Humanity needs to be
in accord with and flow with the Way. This means recognizing that we
are but part of something much greater and more significant. It is in
contradistiction to the western model of reality which posits God as
the ultimate, but gives Humanity a nearest-to-God role in the universe.
In the West, meaning is given to the rest of creation through human use
of it. This is the reverse of the Chinese and especially the Taoist " -
Miller Jew
jim_...@my-deja.com (Jim Fish) wrote:
zhoubu wrote:
> ...Tao is the process (or ideograph-literally "uniting way") for harmony
>with man and nature. Articulating this further: "The (Way)Tao can only be
>attained by the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the >Tao(Way).
One must become the (Way)Tao" --Prof. Raghavan Iyer (hi!k:). >"Tao Te Ching:
Lao Tzu".
jf:
>I'm sure you know - since you helped me realize that
>I view Tao as process. Yet in the quote - "The (Way)Tao can only be attained
>by the human being who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way). >One must
become the (Way)Tao" - there seems an implication that only >(hu)mankind can
attain Tao through process.
>I tend to accept that most (all?) other creatures are comfortable in
>the Way but humans have the ability to move away from (their) nature
>and so perhaps need a guide like the TTC.
>My question is this: Hypothetically, if God/gods exist wouldn't they
>be subject to the same problem as humans?
For starters, and weakly answerable to allow justice to your question, I think
your hypothetical question might be better understood by relating it to your
other point about "creatures are comfortable". So for that, as we quest harmony
of man and nature --of nature, (..of creatures), there are also other kingdoms
within our Earth-assemblage. Take the 1. mineral, 2. vegetable, 3. animal
kingdom. (Then (4. human). 5. "hun*/soul consciousnesss...**). Each being a
unique kingdom, for their own qualities, yet all evolutionarily* linked
together in a processional pattern.
Therefore, for integrating your "hypothetical question" downward, "if Gods/gods
(6. monadic/logoic?) exist would they be subject to the same problem as
human's?" can be answered 'em-path'etically yes, because they were once human;
they have gained that (sound***) quality to be able to share in it.
Gratis,
-Zhou
* "4. Evolution
All species have originative or moving power (ch'i). When they
obtain water, they become small organisms like silk. In a place
bordering water and land, they become lichens. Thriving on the
bank, they become moss. On the fertile soil they become weeds.
The roots of these weeds become worms, and their leaves become
butterflies. Suddenly the butterfly is transformed into an
insect, which is born under the stove (for its heat), and which
has the appearance of having its skin shed. Its name is called
chu-t'o. After a thousand days, chu-t'o becomes a bird called
kan-yi~-ku. The spittle of the kan-yu-ku becomes an insect called
ssu-mi. The ssu-mi becomes a wine fly, which produces the insect
called i-lu. The insect huang-k'uang produces the insect called
chiu-yu. Mosquitos come from the rotten insects called huan. The
plant yang hsi paired with the bamboo which for a long time has
had no shoot, produces the insect called ch'ing-ning. The
ch'ing-ning produces the insect called ch'eng, ch'eng produces
the horse, and the horse produces men. Man again goes back into
the originative process of Nature. All things come from the
originative process of Nature and return to the originative
process of Nature." --(the)Chuang Tzu/ ch. 18.
"Comment. Is this natural evolution? Hu Shih (1891-1962) thinks
so. (See his Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China,
pp. 131-139.) Whether it is or not, it cannot be doubted that
Chuang Tzu conceived reality as ever changing and as developing
from the simple to the complex." -- Prof. W.S. Chan/ "The Guide Book in Chinese
Philosophy"
** "The perfect man is a spiritual being". --CT/ "The Mystical Way of Chuang
Tzu"/ Prof. W.S.Chan
*** "The great variety of sounds are relative to each other just as much as
they are not relative to each other. To harmonize them in the functioning of
Nature and leave them in the process of infinite evolution is the way to
complete our lifetime." --CT/ ch.2/ Chan
Degrimlin
Degrimlin wrote:
>
> >If you are talking about tao you are talking about tao.
> If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
> There is no middle ground.
> There is no wimpy waffling around it.
> There is no 'god-ness' in Tao.
> Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
> benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
> Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <<
>
> And you can prove this long list of assertions Rick? Or was you thinking the
> readers should just assume you know what you assert?
>>Does reality scare you? )ric)
at times it does but then if you were in the same place it would scare you too.
> Please state a few facts
> to base this fantasy of your on stable ground.
(Snip 4000 year old opinions quoted out of context and if in context proving
absolutely nothing)
So again i Ask YOU rick to state a few facts here proving your rediculas
assertions in the fiast part of this post. As we both know... neither you nor
anyone can do this. Its not possible to walk on the same piece of water twice
or to tie two cows together to make a bird :-)
rick
>
> Degrimlin wrote:
> >
> > >If you are talking about tao you are talking about tao.
> > If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
> > There is no middle ground.
> > There is no wimpy waffling around it.
> > There is no 'god-ness' in Tao.
> > Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
> > benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
> > Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <<
> >
> > And you can prove this long list of assertions Rick? Or was you thinking the
> > readers should just assume you know what you assert?
>
> >>Does reality scare you? )ric)
>
> at times it does but then if you were in the same place it would scare you too.
>
I'm on earth and I 'ain't skeered',
because that is where I will always be,
and that is where I have always been.
dust to dust.
> > Please state a few facts
> > to base this fantasy of your on stable ground.
>
> (Snip 4000 year old opinions quoted out of context and if in context proving
> absolutely nothing)
>
They prove the original philosophy
and negate the bullshit you make of it.
I Put back the quotes here because they do relate to the subject of tao
verses deity which is being discussed, and to the subject of tao which
is over 4000 years old and is best described by those who first wrote
about it. My statements are based on these opinions. I will also
add the third one because it is relevant as well. These statements
are a source of a sentiment that has pervaded throughout the
written works of Taoist Philosophy, Tao is not a deity.
In Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching, we are told that the Tao is the
origin of everything. this is expressed thus:
" The Tao gives birth to the One;
The One gives birth to the Two;
The Two gives birth to the Three;
The Three gives birth to all things. "
Degrimlin
> > >If you are talking about tao you are talking about tao.
> > If you are talking about 'god' you are talking about 'god'.
> > There is no middle ground.
> > There is no wimpy waffling around it.
> > There is no 'god-ness' in Tao.
> > Tao is not a deity. The 'western' 'God' is an omni-potent,
> > benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural deity.
> > Thinking about Tao? Forget 'god' first. <<
> >
> > And you can prove this long list of assertions Rick? Or was you thinking
the
> > readers should just assume you know what you assert?
>
> >>Does reality scare you? )ric)
>
> at times it does but then if you were in the same place it would scare you
too.
>
<>I'm on earth and I 'ain't skeered',
because that is where I will always be,
and that is where I have always been.
dust to dust.<ric
Yep and i bet you think i believe that....
Your fear is evident to all. But your fear is different from mine and for
different reasons. Fear need not be a bad thing..:-)
just a thing.
> > Please state a few facts
> > to base this fantasy of your on stable ground.
>
> (Snip 4000 year old opinions quoted out of context and if in context proving
> absolutely nothing)
>
<>They prove the original philosophy
and negate the bullshit you make of it.Ric<
Your an idiot. 5 years of posting here and i've yet to hear YOU post. Why is
that?
rick
>
> >
> > >>Does reality scare you? )ric)
> >
> > at times it does but then if you were in the same place it would scare you
> too.
> >
>
> <>I'm on earth and I 'ain't skeered',
> because that is where I will always be,
> and that is where I have always been.
> dust to dust.<ric
>
> Yep and i bet you think i believe that....
I don't care if you believe it. Why should I?
> Your fear is evident to all.
No, it seems to be your delusion.
>
> > > Please state a few facts
> > > to base this fantasy of your on stable ground.
> >
> > (Snip 4000 year old opinions quoted out of context and if in context proving
> > absolutely nothing)
> >
>
> <>They prove the original philosophy
> and negate the bullshit you make of it.Ric<
>
> Your an idiot.
I know you are, but what am I?
> 5 years of posting here and i've yet to hear YOU post.
Unless words on a computer screen
make noise for you when you read them
you will probably wait another 5 years for that
technology to be implemented into your newsreader.
> Why is that?
I have nothing to say, but Chuang-tzu has plenty to say.
I would rather quote him.
Snorky The Inept
> >
> > at times it does but then if you were in the same place it would scare
you
> too.
> >
>
> <>I'm on earth and I 'ain't skeered',
> because that is where I will always be,
> and that is where I have always been.
> dust to dust.<ric
>
> Yep and i bet you think i believe that....
I don't think rick much cares what you believe. I don't care much, either.
> Your fear is evident to all.
No, it is not. Rick does not strike me as the fearful type.
> But your fear is different from mine and for
> different reasons. Fear need not be a bad thing..:-)
> just a thing.
Nobody cares about your fear. Get a life.
> > (Snip 4000 year old opinions quoted out of context and if in context
proving
> > absolutely nothing)
>
> <>They prove the original philosophy
> and negate the bullshit you make of it.Ric<
>
> Your an idiot. 5 years of posting here and i've yet to hear YOU post. Why
is
> that?
Degrimlin, perhaps it is because you're a fuckwit moron with no
understanding of, nor anything to contribute to the discussion. Whatever
the reason, I am sick of reading the garbage you spew.
*plonk*
Translation: You are probably too dense to understand how a killfilter
works, so I will make this very simple. I will not see any reply you make
to this or any other post, so don't bother.
--
-Snorky the Inept
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
Degrimlin
understanding of, nor anything to contribute to the discussion. Whatever
the reason, I am sick of reading the garbage you spew.
*plonk*
Translation: You are probably too dense to understand how a killfilter
works, so I will make this very simple. I will not see any reply you make
to this or any other post, so don't bother.<snorky>
........... Srorkie.....? Snorkie??? where are you dear Snorkie?
Guru George
wrote:
>George wrote:
>>Jay wrote:
>>>GG wrote:
>>>>JB wrote:
>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>Jay wrote:
>[...GUT wrenching...s]
>
>>>>They are whatever they are from whatever perspective you take.
>>>
>>>then, it is granted t'hat
>>>from a Taoist perspective Tao isn't God?
>>>why is Kuo Hsiang called a NeoTaoist?
>>>what does New Age mean?
>>>
>>Depends what you mean by "Taoist perspective". If you mean the
>>perspective of someone who's thinking about Dao and God, no.
>
>So you grant, from the get-go, two points.
>
No, because I'm talking about someone who isn't _thinking about_ these
"things" called "Dao" or "God", but _is_ both Dao and God (not the
Demiurge remember, the more abstract idea of God) and knows it in a
peculiar, non-verbal way.
>>If you
>>mean someone who's experienced Dao, and someone else who's experienced
>>God, they are the same, and the two will recognise each other as
>>siblings.
>
>I recognize Hitler and Moses as siblings.
>I've experienced Dao and God and they are
>not the same. If two blind men experience
>different critters and find similarities, does that
>entail that the critters are the same?
>
I think we're getting tangled up in metaphors here. I don't know
about you, but I'm using (I think consistently, though I can't be
sure, and can't be bothered checking :-) the elephant metaphor thus:
it's the world itself, the visible, tangible world, that's the
elephant thingy. We each fumble over (actually see, touch, taste,
etc., in a full-blooded, fully 3-d, perfectly clear, perfectly solid
way) something, what we are fumbling over is One thing. Our
perspectives are different, each is unique; but at the same time there
is One thing of which they are perspectives.
>>>> One
>>>>mustn't confuse lack of instrinsic reality with lack of objectivity.
>>>
>>>was Kuo Hsiang objective enough?
>>>
>>What does he have to do with anything?
>
>His "Taoist" perspective was that Tao isn't God.
>Maybe he didn't experience _your_ God?
>Maybe you didn't experience *his* Tao?
>
No - if he experienced anything at all of note, he experienced the
same thing as me, as any other mystic.
I can guarantee you I would be able to talk to a genuine Sufi mystic,
or Buddhist, Christian, Rabbi, or Daoist "mountain man" (Xian), etc.,
etc., and we would understand each other like old buddies.
>>>>There's nothing cosmic about the length of Caesar's toga, but, given a
>>>>ruler, the length of Caesar has an objectively fixed length -
>>>>objectively fixed, and somewhat dully factual, for all eternity.
>>>
>>>can you measure Tao?
>>>can you measure God?
>>>are all unmeasureables the same?
>>>can you measure the exact length of
>>>the square root of two? or of pi? are they
>>>thus the same?
>>>
>>So many questions, not enough time :-)
>
>Beyond time and space rest m'any
>white-horses of different colours.
>
Nice image.
As a mystic, I can tell you that these guys have all suffered from
mythopoeia. I'll tell you what happens: somebody sees this One, tells
folks about it. The experience (if s/he should be lucky enough to
have it "fixed", as a permanent way of being rather than a lucky
flash, which is what your common or garden mystic like me gets) gives
inspiration, charisma, fire. This attracts followers. The followers,
if they haven't had the experience themselves, fuck it up - they fuck
up the "message" (which was invariably practical - a desperate, caring
attempt at a "how to"), and turn it into bullshit speculative
metaphysics (or even, occasionally, pretty good metaphysics, but
irrelevant to the originally practical message). This happens because
the pressure is on, if you are a representative of the Master
(especially if he's died), to sort of wow the crowds in the same way
the Master did. There are other causes of trouble, but you get the
picture.
Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
You're missing the fact that we're talking about two pairs here:
experience of Dao/Dao and experience of God/God. (Remember, we're not
talking about Demiurges - creator gods - and all that kind of
nonsense, nor about anything less than Big God, the Pure Being of
modern theology, that kind of thing).
One's experience of this One is unique in conventional, interdependent
terms: it happened at a certain time and place, had a beginning and an
end. Same goes for the rest of the chumps, known and unkown. But the
experience we mystics had, was of exactly the same class, and it is
recognisable in all our writings. Any one can see exactly what each
other is talking about - it's like a kind of skilled artisan's jargon
or something.
>>>> Every thing is unique, but they come in families.
>>>
>>>The family of evangelists? The family of
>>>suicide bombers? The family of sea turtles?
>>>Do you deny t'hems th'air mysticalities?
>>>
>>>>What I am talking about is the family of "experiences"
>>>
>>>burning bushes? changing water into wine?
>>>sitting and forgetting?
>>>
>>Actually, now that you mention it, some folks have interpreted the
>>first two kinds of things as coded references to the last kind of
>>thing. I doubt that's applicable in all cases, though I don't doubt
>>it's applicable in some. The rest is mere religion as part of the
>>rubbish of the ages - a mere psychological or sociological phenomenon,
>>just more meme madness.
>
>Dismissing heartfelt mystical experiences
>of others that don't fit into your paradigm is
>to throw out the baby with the bath water.
>
They are not mystical in the sense I mean: as I've said elsewhere, any
experience in which one was there to experience it is not the
experience. Wrt the real thing, one feels _very_ uncomfortable saying
"I had this experience"; it feels like a lie, because one was not
there - really and truly, not there at all. Something happened, but
the ordinary sense of self was completely AWOL in that happening. So
any experience or "vision" of God as something outside oneself, or
anything else of that nature (whatever "ultimate" your intellect is
capable of reaching to) is not it. (But as I've said, you have to be
careful because sometimes "God spoke to me from a burning bush" could
be construed metaphorically - and in very mystic-unfriendly societies,
it would have to be.)
This immediately knocks out all those kinds of "biblical", astral or
shamanistic visions where entities "speak" to one. They may be all
kinds of interesting, but they are not mysticism as I understand it,
they are not the One.
>>>>(though it isn't an experience as normally understood, because "one",
>>>>as one normally understands oneself, isn't there) called "mystical".
>>>
>>>Was Moses there? Was Jesus there?
>>>Was Yin Hsi there when Lao Tzu left Teh country?
>>>
>>>>And my mystical "experience" is the same as yours, in this sense:
>>>>there is only one mystical experience,
>>>
>>>an interesting assert'ion.
>>>Suppose we both have the same One
>>>experience and the fruit of my tree tells me
>>>to go out and kill the neighboring tribe
>>>but yours tells you to get hung on a cross
>>>while another tells them to go fishing.
>>>Are they really the same tree giving rise
>>>to the same fruit?
>>>
>>Won't happen. This experience won't "tell" you to kill anything,
>>etc., etc. Nothing changes - I mean, you don't turn into Clark Kent
>>or grow horns or anything.
>
>In a mystical fog, Tao may look like God.
>Perhaps the sun is shining in mudville.
>Mebbe rugby is the same as baseball.
>Some experience water and find it fine.
>Some experience another liquid and
>think it is the same as water.
>
>-a pov
I am very well aware of the differences between various descriptions
of somethings called "Dao", "God". I am not trying to blur ordinary
language, I am saying that ordinary language is _absolutely incapable_
of describing this "thing" to anybody who hasn't "been there" - just
as much as it's incapable of describing the taste of cheese to someone
who's never tasted it. If you've been there _then_ you'll understand
a description - just like, if you've ever been on a holiday, you'll
understand one of those witty travel writers. But until then, you
literally don't understand what you are talking about - nobody
understands what they are talking about - when they use the words
"God", "Dao", etc., that were first uttered by mystics, giving names
to This which is intrinsically name-free, neither big nor small,
neither this nor that exclusively.
Jaybuzin0000
>zhou quoted:
[...s]
>> ...Tao is the process (or ideograph-literally "uniting way") for harmony
>> with man and nature.
"man and nature"
could be an axiom of Chinese thought.
Can a cat be artificial?
>>Articulating this further: "The (Way)Tao can only be
>> attained by the human being
again, an axiom?
>>who approaches the Tao(Way) through the Tao(Way).
>> One must become the (Way)Tao" --Prof. Raghavan Iyer (hi!k:). "Tao Te Ching:
>
>> Lao Tzu".
some say that one already is dao.
dao may be fu, p'u. su. ying-erh.
>My question is this: Hypothetically, if God/gods exist wouldn't they
>be subject to the same problem as humans?
by definition, perhaps not.
with New Agers, anything's possible.
If God\gods is\are a Creator\creators then
it would appear as though they might
be able to be artificial in the sense of having
types of metaphorical hands. But not all forms
of artificiality are necessarily deviant. And
what appears perverse from one pov
may be natural from another perspective.
Kuo Hsiang gave an argument for God,
if God exists, being simply another of 10k things.
If this pov is taken, does it follow that all 10k
have gone astray? Are humans the only class
of 10k that can possibly go astray?
It could be that Tao Chiao holds many views
assimilated from Hindu\Buddhist paradigms.
Can God\gods evolve as well as involve
t'hems'elves in stuff?
-a long
those lines
Jaybuzin0000
>Jay wrote:
>>GG wrote:
>>>JB wrote:
>>>>gg surmised and muge'd:
>>>>>rs stated a Taoist posit'ion:
>>>>>>Please do not equate god and Dao.
>>>>>>Also Dao is not "it".
>Oh fuss and pother!
:)
>Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
>wasn't he a confucian?
Accordion to Fung, et al, he was a Neo-Taoist
mebbe of Teh Hsuan-hsieh order of Mystics.
>"Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
>the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator
Sew, we're talking about a view.
What concept of God does not connote
an aspect of Creator? A God that does not
Create is a most unusual God, eh? What,
he\she\it simply does nothing?
>(the context is about
>the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing),
Some say Dao is Nothing.
Some say God is Something.
Does God exist?
>I'm talking about a
>more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God -
oh, I get it, you're talking about a God
that really isn't a God atall!
>something that
>looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
Let's see, is that kinda like the Rembrandt
who doesn't paint? Or the Tiger who doesn't
play golf? I suppose that if you take away
all the aspects of different things they do
begin to all look the same. Such a fuss
and pother. Why do such silly things?
>>>>When people who have used "Tao talk" a lot
>>
>>no comment?
>>
>What's to comment?
When most folks speak of God, they mean
a God that Creates and has Power and all the
good shit that God does. When most folks
speak of Tao the mean something else.
> I'm not talking about an omnipotent,
okay. remove that aspect.
>benevolent,
remove that aspect.
>singularly sentient,
remove that aspect.
>supernatural being.
remove that aspect.
Anything else you'd like to take away from the
concept of God that the term connotes or denotes?
>That's a kind of fantasy,
Really? I thought it was more like a
definition of a word. Why twist the meanings
of words to make them adhere to your fantasy?
>or at best something like an "astral" creation,
Some say astral planes exist.
Perhaps they are deluded or perhaps
you are simply blind.
> or the avatar
some say Krishna existed. some say Jesus does.
>of some
>realised being become historical (yet persisting on the "astral").
some have Realized some things.
some are delusional. some are blind.
>(If you believe in that sort of thing - which I'm agnostic about,
then you haven't had the experience, eh?
To you, not having had the experience,
God and Tao look the same.
>The God talk eventually sloughs off the crap, the wishful thinking,
>the father/mother fantasies, etc., etc.
prehaps m'ore Jimi Hendrix will help?
>There's "something" at the ROOT of things
ah yes, the ROOT.
Dao is now the ROOT.
God is now the ROOT.
Therefore the pine tree is an oak tree.
>- it's deeply unfathomable, highly abstract to talk
>about, but it does have a _character_,
you mean, like Jesus?
I'm just messin with ya.
I hear wh'air yer comin from.
You can't help it if you've not had
the clarity that comes with going beyond
a foggy ROOT in which things merge
and blend into Tod. He's Way Cool!
> a thus-so-ness, that is like
>its "personality", that kind of "speaks" to you.
yes. Tod speaks to sum.
Tao speaks-without-speaking to subtract.
>And this is the echo
>of the God talk, the bit about God talk that's true
Why say such a thing?
Why try and stick a square God in around Tao?
>It's like there's a faint perfume
>of God-ness in the Dao,
That's Tod's body odour.
It'll be on the market soon!
> but there's sense in the ordinary mind
>thinking of the Dao as more of an abstract, totally impersonal thing -
>it's probably less distracting for the mind, and makes meditation
>easier, for some kinds of intelligences.
You mean, like skiing downhill? Or like
carving an ox? Or like catching bugs?
Or like diving off Lu Liang Falls?
>I'm talking about the God whose flesh and blood this
>world IS.
okay. Tod it is.
But your Tod is a bit different from Esther's.
Mebbe Tod is twins?
>But the long lived
>Gods, even up to Brahma, are as chaff in the wind to the enlightened
>mind, which understands itself to be THAT which contains all of them,
some do have such an experience.
others have other experiences.
Tat vam asi is One. Neti-neti is another.
> And that
>deep whatchamacallit,
Tod is his name.
> whateveritis,
Tod is the way.
>is what many God-fearing folks
>have (eventually) understood by the term "God" too.
and, as for the rest, for those who have had
quite Other experiences than those who are
Enlightened and Realized, well, they are
simply full of shit, eh? Who is delusional?
Some say it's the Todites who are trippin.
Some say that Jesus freqs are far out man.
>(I say
>eventually, because it does take a bit of maturity to understand this
>:-)
indeed.
Well, w'hen ya grows outta Tod,
be careful of the staple.
>Anything that's an experience of a "God" that's outside you, and not
>you, is not what I'm talking about. Any experience of "God" where
>"you" also exist, is not what I'm talking about.
okay. but you are still clinging to
your n'ocean of "God", eh? Is t'here a
strawberry on yer cliff?
>>>and
>>>what's left is ... well, pretty much the same thing as Dao.
>>
>>and what's left is ... well, lots of stuff that isn't
>>even at all the same as Dao nor similar.
>
>But my dear boy, all _that_ stuff's neither here nore there! :-)
wh'aird it go?
vanished? poofy?
>>Some blind folk think an elephant
>>is the same as a rhino.
>>
>And some people make mountains out of molehills.
hey, that's what usenet is fur!
>I don't believe in Jesus - I think he's a made-up god. Either that or
>I'm Jesus, you're Jesus, and our pet cat is Jesus - Chrestos,
>anointed, perfected, God made flesh, the One made flesh.
You mean, the, what was your flesh and blood
quote above about what the world is?
>>Do you call on Dao to heal the sick, or cure the lame?
>>Does Dao, with a bit of mud, bring eyesight
>>to the blind? Would Dao sacrifice a lamb
>>prior to the foundat'ions of Teh Earth?
>>
>
>Oh brother! Dao is more low key, and not quite so melodramatic.
So ya got a high-strung God and a low key Dao.
A dramatic Krishna and a behind the scenes
Way of not-doing?
.... to be continued ...
{:-])))
rick
>
> As a mystic,
yeah
A lot Bullshit snipped here....
Hey george,
take a laxitive.
you will feel better.
Degrimlin
What concept of God does not connote
an aspect of Creator? A God that does not
Create is a most unusual God, eh? What,
he\she\it simply does nothing?
Some say Dao is Nothing.
Some say God is Something.
Does God exist?
oh, I get it, you're talking about a God
that really isn't a God atall! <JAY<<
Does it matter at all? :-)
The issue could be the assertion of one way or the other. As a declaration is
made... the movement from center takes place... as the very act itself of
choice of this to be that ...denies what is. What is is that without the added
additions from you or i. But then you know that but what i don't understand is
why you continue the games.. is it for the play?
Guru George
wrote:
>Self Proclaimed 'Guru' George wrote:
>>
>> As a mystic,
>
>yeah
>
>A lot Bullshit snipped here....
>
Why do you think it's bullshit?
>Hey george,
>
>take a laxitive.
>you will feel better.
I think I need more than a laxative.
Guru George
wrote:
>George wrote:
>>Jay wrote:
>>>GG wrote:
>>>>JB wrote:
>>>>>gg surmised and muge'd:
>>>>>>rs stated a Taoist posit'ion:
>[...s]
>>>>>>>Please do not equate god and Dao.
>>>>>>>Also Dao is not "it".
>
>>Oh fuss and pother!
>
>:)
>
>>Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
>>wasn't he a confucian?
>
>Accordion to Fung, et al, he was a Neo-Taoist
>mebbe of Teh Hsuan-hsieh order of Mystics.
>
>>"Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
>>the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator
>
>Sew, we're talking about a view.
>What concept of God does not connote
>an aspect of Creator? A God that does not
>Create is a most unusual God, eh? What,
>he\she\it simply does nothing?
>
You've gotta broaden your reading boy. Read some Heidegger, read
modern Xtian theologians. The concept of God - in the sense of
definition of a God that is actually possible - has suffered a lot of
philosophical cutting down (or rather up!) to size.
>>(the context is about
>>the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing),
>
>Some say Dao is Nothing.
>Some say God is Something.
>Does God exist?
>
Dao is not Nothing - it isn't Something, and it isn't Nothing. It's
outside thinghood altogether. So is any God worthy of the name.
>>I'm talking about a
>>more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God -
>
>oh, I get it, you're talking about a God
>that really isn't a God atall!
>
Look Jay, it's really not a terribly outre concept I'm talking about.
The distinction between "Demiurge" (creator god) and THAT which gave
rise to him (God God) is pretty standard in Gnosticism.
Unsurprisingly - to the extent that some speech or writing comes from
experience it will make this distinction, between a possible creator
God that's the biggest organised thing there is and which may have
created us, and GOD, that is to say, the ALL, the ONE, that which is
FINAL, FULL STOP. The which than which there is no whicher, as Alan
Watts said (peace be upon his beard!)
>>something that
>>looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
>
>Let's see, is that kinda like the Rembrandt
>who doesn't paint? Or the Tiger who doesn't
>play golf? I suppose that if you take away
>all the aspects of different things they do
>begin to all look the same. Such a fuss
>and pother. Why do such silly things?
>
Simple: the concept of God initially comes partly as a social
construct based on genetic, psychological, economic, social and
political needs - usually blindly, but sometimes consciously
constructed to fulfil those needs. It partly comes from that, but
also partly comes from peculiar experiences that some people (usually
called mystics) have had, and spoken about. It also partly comes from
the logic of the concepts of ultimacy, of absolute, etc. And it
(maybe) also partly comes from some kind of "astral" or genuinely
"magickal" (strictly so-called) shenanigans.
These are all components that might be present in any experience
people have that they call "God". The only one that matters is the
one that unites the philosophical concept of ultimacy with the
experience of ultimacy. Goddy God, the God than which there is
nothing Goddier, in terms of modern, streamlined theology, is _almost_
equivalent to Dao. (I've never said the congruence is _exact_ - I
mean, I don't believe it is; all I'm saying is that the distinction
isn't as crude as you and Rick are trying to make it, and to define
the distinction is quite a subtle job I believe.)
>>>>>When people who have used "Tao talk" a lot
>>>
>>>no comment?
>>>
>>What's to comment?
>
>When most folks speak of God, they mean
>a God that Creates and has Power and all the
>good shit that God does. When most folks
>speak of Tao the mean something else.
>
Yes, but I'm not most people, nor are most mystics, philosophers or
anybody with at least a passing acquitance with modern philosophy and
theology :-)
[snip]
>>That's a kind of fantasy,
>
>Really? I thought it was more like a
>definition of a word. Why twist the meanings
>of words to make them adhere to your fantasy?
>
>>or at best something like an "astral" creation,
>
>Some say astral planes exist.
>Perhaps they are deluded or perhaps
>you are simply blind.
>
Yes, I've said: perhaps.
>> or the avatar
>
>some say Krishna existed. some say Jesus does.
>
They're welcome to say what they like, and I'll say it's bollocks (or
whatever else I think is true).
>>of some
>>realised being become historical (yet persisting on the "astral").
>
>some have Realized some things.
>some are delusional. some are blind.
>
Yup.
>>(If you believe in that sort of thing - which I'm agnostic about,
>
>then you haven't had the experience, eh?
>To you, not having had the experience,
>God and Tao look the same.
>
I haven't had the experience of a Demiurge talking to me as an
external entity, no, nor do I have much interest in that kind of
thing, nor do I believe I will ever experience such a thing. However,
should it ever happen, it will only be part of something else,
something bigger, and THAT is what I "really" am, what "you" really
are, etc.
>>The God talk eventually sloughs off the crap, the wishful thinking,
>>the father/mother fantasies, etc., etc.
>
>prehaps m'ore Jimi Hendrix will help?
>
Huh?
>>There's "something" at the ROOT of things
>
>ah yes, the ROOT.
>Dao is now the ROOT.
>God is now the ROOT.
>Therefore the pine tree is an oak tree.
>
Pine is pine, oak is oak. But oak and pine are part of the only One
thing that is. One leaf isn't another leaf, but they are both _tree_.
One wave isn't another wave, but they are both _ocean_.
>>- it's deeply unfathomable, highly abstract to talk
>>about, but it does have a _character_,
>
>you mean, like Jesus?
Yes, in a way, like Jesus. This universe has a character, a perfume,
a queer limitedness, a sort of posed, almost artificial quality to it
- you may catch a whiff of it now and then. Sartre was nauseated by
it. That's the remnant of the thing people really mean when they talk
about God, the "personality" of things. Behind the many unique
presentations, there's one flavour. OTOH, hidden in the one, there's
a profligacy of possibilities, each with its unique taste.
>I'm just messin with ya.
>I hear wh'air yer comin from.
>You can't help it if you've not had
>the clarity that comes with going beyond
>a foggy ROOT in which things merge
>and blend into Tod. He's Way Cool!
>
There's no "merging and blending", the oneness is there along. There
is only One thing going on here: everything that happens has a context
that's not-it. The context of the One, the All, is Nothing.
I am not denying the 10k, I'm just affirming the One.
>> a thus-so-ness, that is like
>>its "personality", that kind of "speaks" to you.
>
>yes. Tod speaks to sum.
>Tao speaks-without-speaking to subtract.
>
God works in mysterious ways, is unfathomable, etc. Have you read any
Boehme?
>>And this is the echo
>>of the God talk, the bit about God talk that's true
>
>Why say such a thing?
>Why try and stick a square God in around Tao?
>
I'm doing no such thing; I prefer the Dao concept, but I see how the
God concept fits too, and how they refer to an actual experience that
REALLY IS BEYONDS WORDS.
The DDJ isn't joking Jay, in the line you're fond of quoting, it's not
talking about a cute philosophical point, it's talking about a living
experience that it's possible to have, that it's possible for _you_ to
have, for all of us. Spread the good news! ;-)
>>It's like there's a faint perfume
>>of God-ness in the Dao,
>
>That's Tod's body odour.
>It'll be on the market soon!
>
:-)
>> but there's sense in the ordinary mind
>>thinking of the Dao as more of an abstract, totally impersonal thing -
>>it's probably less distracting for the mind, and makes meditation
>>easier, for some kinds of intelligences.
>
>You mean, like skiing downhill? Or like
>carving an ox? Or like catching bugs?
>Or like diving off Lu Liang Falls?
>
>>I'm talking about the God whose flesh and blood this
>>world IS.
>
>okay. Tod it is.
>But your Tod is a bit different from Esther's.
>Mebbe Tod is twins?
>
Tod is a multitude of Tods. Multiply 1 x 1, what do you have? A
series of infinities is infinite. You are THAT, I am THAT, Esther's
Tod is THAT, Laozi's Dao is THAT, the Buddha's body (kaya) is THAT; we
are all perspectives on this absolutely unfathomable Great Big Thing
that exists right before our very eyes.
God, Schmod, Yod, Bod, clod. Dao, Schmao, Vau, Bow, Lao.
Jay. George.
>>But the long lived
>>Gods, even up to Brahma, are as chaff in the wind to the enlightened
>>mind, which understands itself to be THAT which contains all of them,
>
>some do have such an experience.
>others have other experiences.
>Tat vam asi is One. Neti-neti is another.
>
Yes, and both lead to the same end in nondual Vedanta, do they not?
>> And that
>>deep whatchamacallit,
>
>Tod is his name.
>
Whatever.
>> whateveritis,
>
>Tod is the way.
>
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along ;-)
>>is what many God-fearing folks
>>have (eventually) understood by the term "God" too.
>
>and, as for the rest, for those who have had
>quite Other experiences than those who are
>Enlightened and Realized, well, they are
>simply full of shit, eh? Who is delusional?
>Some say it's the Todites who are trippin.
>Some say that Jesus freqs are far out man.
>
You mustn't be overly impressed with the fact that different people
have different opinions. We are not _obliged_ to throw our hands up
in despair and stomp off. Some people may be wrong, others right.
Some may be partially right or wrong, etc., etc. Sifting what really
is the case out of what's merely more or less plausible,
contradictory, etc., is good fun! It's also good fun laying your dick
on the table so everyone can get the measure of it. Check it out!!!
I say it's like this. You say your piece. End of story.
>>(I say
>>eventually, because it does take a bit of maturity to understand this
>>:-)
>
>indeed.
>Well, w'hen ya grows outta Tod,
>be careful of the staple.
>
?
>>Anything that's an experience of a "God" that's outside you, and not
>>you, is not what I'm talking about. Any experience of "God" where
>>"you" also exist, is not what I'm talking about.
>
>okay. but you are still clinging to
>your n'ocean of "God", eh? Is t'here a
>strawberry on yer cliff?
>
I'm not the one clinging Jay - I'm the one who couldn't give two hoots
what you call IT.
[nips]
>>>Some blind folk think an elephant
>>>is the same as a rhino.
>>>
>>And some people make mountains out of molehills.
>
>hey, that's what usenet is fur!
>
Not for me - in fact I'm going to have to ease off, fun as this is. I
just don't have the time. Try to keep 'em short, eh? :-)
>>I don't believe in Jesus - I think he's a made-up god. Either that or
>>I'm Jesus, you're Jesus, and our pet cat is Jesus - Chrestos,
>>anointed, perfected, God made flesh, the One made flesh.
>
>You mean, the, what was your flesh and blood
>quote above about what the world is?
>
Of course.
>>>Do you call on Dao to heal the sick, or cure the lame?
>>>Does Dao, with a bit of mud, bring eyesight
>>>to the blind? Would Dao sacrifice a lamb
>>>prior to the foundat'ions of Teh Earth?
>>>
>>
>>Oh brother! Dao is more low key, and not quite so melodramatic.
>
>So ya got a high-strung God and a low key Dao.
>A dramatic Krishna and a behind the scenes
>Way of not-doing?
>
That's as good a way of putting it as any :-)
Two for the price of One!
>.... to be continued ...
>{:-])))
Not for much longer I hope!
Guru George
wrote:
>Guru George wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oh fuss and pother! Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
>> wasn't he a confucian? "Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
>> the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator (the context is about
>> the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing), I'm talking about a
>> more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God - something that
>> looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
>
>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>Dao, which is none of those.
>(just for the sake of reinteration)
>
It should be obvious I'm not talking about that kind of God. No
modern philosophical/theological concept of God would tell us he's
sentient in the way we're sentient, for example, in the sense of
"knowing what we're doing" in the ordinary way - but "his ways",
mysterious as they may be, are _intelligent_, that's for sure. Just
like the Dao.
No mystic is ever talking about such shallow foppery as "omnipotent,
benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural" - those are toy
concepts, dream concepts, human-all-too-human, mere dust-motes
compared to the experience of the reality of God/Dao/Buddha body.
[snipped rest - sorry, you put some effort into that post, but all my
allotted a.p.t time is filled by Jay at the moment, and since AFAIK
the points you raised have also been raised by Jay, I'm sure you'll
find passable answers to your points in my discussion with him. :-)]
A Parthian shot: in fact, even this concept of "he knows not what he
does" is crucial to both Dao mysticism and God mysticism. God becomes
flesh in order to discover what he's done. Same as Dao, which is
unaware of doing anything, but becomes self-aware via the seeker, who
becomes One with it.
yunlong
> Self Proclaimed 'Guru' George wrote:
> >
> > As a mystic,
There's only one mystic and that is life itself. When you figure that
(life) out you'll find that God, Buddha, Xian, even Tao for that
matter, are all man-made.
>
> yeah
>
> A lot Bullshit snipped here....
Don't knock it before you figure out what it is said.
>
> Hey george,
>
> take a laxitive.
> you will feel better.
Tense, are you?
For feeling better, have you seen a butterfly fly lately?
Spring is on its way,
misty
Miller Jew
rick <rsat...@iglou.comEDY> wrote:
Guru George wrote:
>>
>>
>Oh fuss and pother! Kuo Hsiang - I haven't read the commentary, but
>wasn't he a confucian? "Dao appears to precede God" is talking about
>the "Demiurge", the concept of God as creator (the context is about
>the Dao itself being an unmade kind of thing), I'm talking about a
>more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God - something that
>looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
Hi Rick! GG:) Many Tx (& to esp to J:) for your commentaries stated throughout
these postings. In short, and foremost, I'm most appreciative your 'coming out
of the closet' :) to share your enlightenment experiences here. (Which -about
it, but not exclusive to it, is what the Eastern Wisdom teachings is very much
intrinsically about). But for want of your possibly feeling isolated here
-which I know your not:), other participants on the a.p.t. (including I) have
also 'fessed up' their own gleens of (if not total) enlightenment; I would love
to hear them voice, if not revoice, their experiences also.
In conclusion I would like to ask questions and comment on a few of yours, and
perhaps share in the commonality that enlightenment does, via other postings on
this, forthcoming.
(Again) Kudos GG,
--Zhou
R
htshen
No, I don't see butterfly anywhere, but traffic flies around me.
No, I don't see the mountains, but concrete building with no windows.
Oh, no, oh, no, what has happened? why? why?
I don't ask deeply anymore, but I know it deeply :(
Nature and people, 'sometimes' they are mutually exclusive.
How can I make my surrounding habitable for me and for others?
Chinese calls it 'harmony'.
I can harmonize with Nature/bears naturally,
(scared hell out of me)
to harmonize with people/neighbors, Chinese calls it 'Tien, Di, Ren.'
Really.
:) ht
Miller Jew
rick <rsat...@iglou.comEDY> wrote:
Guru George gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk wrote:
>>.....
>> ..I'm talking about a more abstract, refined, philosophical version of God -
>>something that looks, indeed, very much like the Dao.
R
>There is a great amount of difference in an omni-potent,
>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural being and
>Dao, which is none of those.
>(just for the sake of reinteration)
GG
>It should be obvious I'm not talking about that kind of God. No
>modern philosophical/theological concept of God would tell us he's
>sentient in the way we're sentient, for example, in the sense of
>"knowing what we're doing" in the ordinary way - but "his ways",
>mysterious as they may be, are _intelligent_, that's for sure. Just
>like the Dao.
>
>No mystic is ever talking about such shallow foppery as "omnipotent,
>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural"
Agreed. For coming from y/our mystics perspective, is not theologically
faith-based, but based on mystic experiencing.
GG
>those are toy concepts, dream concepts, human-all-too-human, mere >dust-motes
compared to the experience of the reality of God/Dao/Buddha >body.
Yes, "human-all-to-human", but of course, not to negate the human the
experience comes by; i.e. there wouldn't be direct-experiencing without the
human.
GG
>snipped rest - sorry (...)
>
>A Parthian shot: in fact, even this concept of "he knows not what he
>does" is crucial to both Dao mysticism and God mysticism. God becomes
>flesh in order to discover what he's done. Same as Dao, which is
>unaware of doing anything, but becomes self-aware via the seeker, who
>becomes One with it.
Yet in following you;) I got lost somewhere; maybe you can help? For "he knows
not what he does" this, your (I assume) overall Mahayanic causal description
parallels God mysticism? Where in (their) mystic notes do they parallel this?
Nevertheless, "he knows not what he does" would be close to my realization of
this will-to-be in phenomenon --that is, to discover we are* this mystic God,
through this (Unity) Dao/Way of manifest evidencing.
Rgds,
--Zhou
*or at least academically discovered:)--> "Ye are Gods!" --Jesus Christ/ in
"St. John... somewhere:)
Esther Jacobs
>GG
>>It should be obvious I'm not talking about that kind of God. No
>>modern philosophical/theological concept of God would tell us he's
>>sentient in the way we're sentient, for example, in the sense of
>>"knowing what we're doing" in the ordinary way - but "his ways",
>>mysterious as they may be, are _intelligent_, that's for sure. Just
>>like the Dao.
>>
>>No mystic is ever talking about such shallow foppery as "omnipotent,
>>benevolent, singularly sentient, supernatural"
Here is a quote by Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful and deepest experience one can have is the sense of the
mysterious...One who has never had this experience seems to me if not dead then
at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is
something that we cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
indirectly and as a feeble refelction, this is religiousness. In this sense I
am religious."
Z
>Agreed. For coming from y/our mystics perspective, is not theologically
>faith-based, but based on mystic experiencing.
Correction here Z, not all theology is "faith based" as you call it - much of
it is quite mystical and "law based."
Z
>>A Parthian shot: in fact, even this concept of "he knows not what he
>>does" is crucial to both Dao mysticism and God mysticism. God becomes
>>flesh in order to discover what he's done. Same as Dao, which is
>>unaware of doing anything, but becomes self-aware via the seeker, who
>>becomes One with it.
The concept of G-d becoming flesh is strictly Chritianity.
As for Dao becoming self aware via the seeker who become one with it - aren't
you diminishing the vastness of the Dao? Haven't you, as Einstein said,
forgotten one must be in search of something our mind cannot grasp - first?
Better mystical study would be Kabbalah, Maimonides and Rashi.
Regards, Esther
*Love does what Hate cannot