Daoist Principles
zisixi
to Budhist principles, my contemplation was focused to the questions,
"what exactly are daoist principles?"
"Are daoist principles clearly definable, or do they have
dependencies?"
I guess I'm also even a bit doubtful about the whole idea of defining
a list of Taoist Principles, but it seems that it might be a nice
thing to meditate upon. I'm interested in what others might posit.
a quick google presents the following candidates (among others), which
I include as a starting point.
-------googled---------------
- Oneness
- Dynamic Balance
- Cyclical Growth
- Harmonious Action
(http://www.taoism.net/articles/mason/principl.htm)
-----
A rejection of the following
• distinctions between right and wrong
• exclusive reliance on reason
• faith in a divine being and any hope of an afterlife
• all formal guides to ethical conduct, ranging from organizational
and professional codes to the Ten Commandments
• the belief that leaders should actively influence groups and
organizations
• technological sophistication
• the desire to punish evildoers
• condemnation of other points of view
• moral absolutes
• separation of the spiritual and material worlds; any distinction
between secular and spiritual leadership
(http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu/Publications/Leadership_Discoveries/LD_2001/LDTaoist%20Leadership%20Ethics.doc)
-----
"In the Taoist principles we aspire to achieving a state of Wu Wei.
This comes from a state of quietness and clarity which means yielding
to, and not reacting to, or dealing with interference from external
forces."
http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/tianliyang.html
-----
- non-resistance
- cycling and continuity
- polarity and balance
http://www.theqi.com/taichi/monkey.html
-------end googled---------------
-------references:---------------
article - Johnson, C., "Business by Buddhist principles", Pioneer
Press, Mar. 16, 2003
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/5395743.htm
book - Kulanda, Houlder, D., "Mindfulness and Money: The Buddhist Path
to Abundance", Broadway Books, Dec. 24, 2002
http://www.mindfulnessandmoney.com/book.html
-------end references:---------------
bookburn
"zisixi" <zis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:161fbe89.03031...@posting.google.com...
> After reading an article about a book about doing business
according
> to Budhist principles, my contemplation was focused to the
questions,
>
> "what exactly are daoist principles?"
> "Are daoist principles clearly definable, or do they have
> dependencies?"
>
> I guess I'm also even a bit doubtful about the whole idea of
defining
> a list of Taoist Principles, but it seems that it might be a nice
> thing to meditate upon. I'm interested in what others might
posit.
>
> a quick google presents the following candidates (among others),
which
> I include as a starting point.
>
> -------googled---------------
>
> - Oneness
> - Dynamic Balance
> - Cyclical Growth
> - Harmonious Action
If this is multiple-choice, I will go for Harmonious Action.
> (http://www.taoism.net/articles/mason/principl.htm)
> -----
>
> A rejection of the following
> . distinctions between right and wrong
> . exclusive reliance on reason
> . faith in a divine being and any hope of an afterlife
> . all formal guides to ethical conduct, ranging from
organizational
> and professional codes to the Ten Commandments
> . the belief that leaders should actively influence groups and
> organizations
To take advantage of TTC commentary about things the sage says to do
about running a country, and how that ripple spreads, I think you
can be a "guide."
bookburn
-------end references:---------------
innocent bystander
news:161fbe89.03031...@posting.google.com
> After reading an article about a book about doing business according
> to Budhist principles, my contemplation was focused to the questions,
>
> "what exactly are daoist principles?"
> "Are daoist principles clearly definable, or do they have
> dependencies?"
>
> I guess I'm also even a bit doubtful about the whole idea of defining
> a list of Taoist Principles, but it seems that it might be a nice
> thing to meditate upon. I'm interested in what others might posit.
To define an idea about tao one has to do some carving. This is one of taoisms greatest dilemmas in
my opinion. Even the ancient canons have to define certain aspects of tao.
It occurs to me that this is somewhat a rhetorical problem. You can define certain things by adding
features in your description, or you can define them by explaining what they *aren't*. It seems that
the solution to this dilemma is the latter, at least if you're looking how life's big mysteries are
explained in TTC for instance...
> a quick google presents the following candidates (among others), which
> I include as a starting point.
>
> -------googled---------------
>
> - Oneness
> - Dynamic Balance
> - Cyclical Growth
> - Harmonious Action
> (http://www.taoism.net/articles/mason/principl.htm)
Alright with me so far...
> A rejection of the following
> . distinctions between right and wrong
> . exclusive reliance on reason
Could someone explain this to me? I don't think i've ever seen this one before.
> . faith in a divine being and any hope of an afterlife
> . all formal guides to ethical conduct, ranging from organizational
> and professional codes to the Ten Commandments
Even TaoTeChing Proclaims humility and compassion. I see this as a mean to make the te principle
"safe".
> . the belief that leaders should actively influence groups and
> organizations
Doesn't this apply to all of us?
Nice googled, by the way!
--
Disclaimer:
This has been - as always - just my two cents.
Ory
> "Are daoist principles clearly definable, or do they have
> dependencies?"
Yes.
"Yes as in they are clearly definable? Or as in yes they have dependencies?"
No.
Ory
tein
why bother with anything?
of course there is a before
life and an after life.
just because someone has lost
their awareness of them doesn't
mean they don't exist.
not that it matters anyway,
but why argue about how to
bake a cake when you are
missing the basic ingredients?
Jaybuzin0000
>"what exactly are daoist principles?"
Depends on what exactly is meant by daoist.
It might depend on what exactly is a principle.
>"Are daoist principles clearly definable,
>or do they have dependencies?"
Perhaps both.
I can clearly define Daoist principles
as being those major themes found in three
particular so-called seminal texts from what has
been referred to as the classical period.
As such, the principle are dependent upon the texts.
Others may set up other parameters.
>I guess I'm also even a bit doubtful about the whole idea of defining
>a list of Taoist Principles,
Shit happens.
Clearly this may deepend up
on w'hat one may consider to be shit.
Maybe maybe can be a principle.
>but it seems that it might be a nice
>thing to meditate upon.
Daoist\Daoism
may have something to do with Dao.
In the DDJ it says, dao chang wu wei.
It also says, dao chang wu ming.
To me, these can be taken to be axiomatic.
Others may have their own view of things.
Up\down, good\bad, beauty\ugly, this\that;
the way in which twos are one is a principle
in my bozo dao of chopping pu, and fu'ing.
Fu is said to be the motion of dao, a principle
which a daoist may consider at times.
To jump up, squat down. In order to
shoot an arrow forward, pull a bow backward.
> I'm interested in what others might posit.
For me, an attribute of the Zz,
a principle if you will, has been termed
perspectival relativism. To me this is clear.
Unism of the mind\body sort can be a principle.
Emptiness and uselessness can be principles
from which spokes may radiate or with which
one may live long and prosper.
Integrity of organism\environment can be
scene as an organic or wholistic principle
found in mystical experiences or unity consciousness.
>a quick google presents the following candidates (among others), which
>I include as a starting point.
>
>-------googled---------------
............
>-------end references:---------------
Nice list. I'm being redundent.
A contrast with Confucianism can be said
to be a principle of Classical Taoist philosophy.
Is water a principle?
zisixi
Yeah, there were a few in that particular list that didn't quite sit
right with me. Me personally, I figure I could be anything after my
body dies. Like the conversation in CZ where the guy is gonna die and
his friend wonders what he'll be next.
Nick Argall
"innocent bystander" <sp...@someguy.com> wrote in message
news:b52nqf$25qdnc$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...
> "zisixi" <zis...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:161fbe89.03031...@posting.google.com
> > After reading an article about a book about doing business according
> > to Budhist principles, my contemplation was focused to the questions,
> >
> > "what exactly are daoist principles?"
> > "Are daoist principles clearly definable, or do they have
> > dependencies?"
> >
> > I guess I'm also even a bit doubtful about the whole idea of defining
> > a list of Taoist Principles, but it seems that it might be a nice
> > thing to meditate upon. I'm interested in what others might posit.
>
> To define an idea about tao one has to do some carving. This is one of
taoisms greatest dilemmas in
> my opinion. Even the ancient canons have to define certain aspects of tao.
It's a tricky thing, that fei chang dao :)
> It occurs to me that this is somewhat a rhetorical problem. You can define
certain things by adding
> features in your description, or you can define them by explaining what
they *aren't*. It seems that
> the solution to this dilemma is the latter, at least if you're looking how
life's big mysteries are
> explained in TTC for instance...
Since the dao isn't the same as anything else, any statement about what it
is is bound to contain falsehood. At the same time, all statements about
what it isn't can be demonstrated to be true because all statements about
what it is contain falsehood.
Not terribly useful to say that the Tao isn't a Pamela Anderson 1997
calendar, but it is true.
> > A rejection of the following
> > . distinctions between right and wrong
> > . exclusive reliance on reason
>
> Could someone explain this to me? I don't think i've ever seen this one
before.
Let's take em separately:
- Distinctions between right and wrong
This is one of the mystical aspects. Basically it's a recognition that
nobody believes that they are wrong. Since people's beliefs create the
world they live in, every sincerely made statement is true, if nowhere else
but in the mind of the one that says it. Therefore, in an absolute sense,
there is no right and wrong. However, from a practical point of view, we
can say that driving on the wrong side of the road is likely to result in
injury.
This subtle differentiation between absolute (provable) truth and relative
(practical) truth ties in to
- Abandoning an exclusive reliance on reason
(although I prefer 'deductive analysis' over 'reason' for rather pedantic
reasons)
This principle has in fact been rediscovered by modern pure mathematics, in
the form of Godel's Theorem. Godel's Theorem very neatly proves that in
every mathematical system there must be some statements that are observably
true but not provably true. An obvious real-life example is to prove that
the sun will high above the horizon at noon tomorrow (pretend we're at the
equator and leave out that whole business about it staying still and us
moving, OK?). You can't prove it. You can be pretty sure it will be true,
but you can never prove a statement about the future - something
unimaginable might happen.
So we use deduction, but we use non-deductive modes as well, because they
tend to be much simpler and more practical than deduction.
HTH,
Nick
zisixi
I think if asked, that is what I'd answer.
Q."What are the principles of Daoism?"
A."water, air, earth, fire"
hmm, never been a big one
for the whole book of changes thing,
but it begins to make sense.
innocent bystander
news:VZdda.2933$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> "innocent bystander" <sp...@someguy.com> wrote in message
> news:b52nqf$25qdnc$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...
>> "zisixi" <zis...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:161fbe89.03031...@posting.google.com
[...]
>> It occurs to me that this is somewhat a rhetorical problem. You can
>> define certain things by adding features in your description, or you
>> can define them by explaining what they *aren't*. It seems that the
>> solution to this dilemma is the latter, at least if you're looking
>> how life's big mysteries are explained in TTC for instance...
>
> Since the dao isn't the same as anything else, any statement about
> what it is is bound to contain falsehood. At the same time, all
> statements about what it isn't can be demonstrated to be true because
> all statements about what it is contain falsehood.
>
> Not terribly useful to say that the Tao isn't a Pamela Anderson 1997
> calendar, but it is true.
Hehehe, good one.
How do you know it's not? (You don't have to answer that)
OK, i think i get it. So this is a mean to avoid taking certain things for granted? Maybe to keep us
from carving even?
--
Listening to silence
Jaybuzin0000
>> . exclusive reliance on reason
>
>Could someone explain this to me?
does love makes sense?
>TaoTeChing Proclaims humility and compassion.
treasures may be discovered
after layers of reason are discarded.
>> . the belief that leaders should actively influence groups and
>> organizations
>
>Doesn't this apply to all of us?
lots of people and organizations opt
for autocratic styles of management.
Jaybuzin0000
>na wrote:
>> Not terribly useful to say that the Tao isn't a Pamela Anderson 1997
>> calendar, but it is true.
>
>Hehehe, good one.
>
>How do you know it's not? (You don't have to answer that)
Some paradigms invoke a sort of panenism
in which their ultimate reality is identical
with each and every thing. Tao has been said
to be in all things but is not any of those things.
-a potential principle
yunlong
> jaybuz...@cs.comm (Jaybuzin0000) wrote in message news:<20030316193727...@mb-cr.news.cs.com>...
> > zisixi wrote:
> >
> > >"what exactly are daoist principles?"
> > Is water a principle?
Yes, the appearance maybe different, however, it is the unchangeable
(known also as Chang) property that makes a principle.
>
> I think if asked, that is what I'd answer.
>
> Q."What are the principles of Daoism?"
> A."water, air, earth, fire"
Just in case [you overlooked], ancient Chinese don't talk about "air."
The main ingredients/principles of classical Chinese Taoism is metal,
water, wood, fire, and earth.
>
> hmm, never been a big one
> for the whole book of changes thing,
> but it begins to make sense.
when you figure out that "metal" doesn't mean the metal substance.
:)
IS
zisixi
LOL!
I bow as I pause to laugh at my sillyness!
This just shows how mixed up I am about certain things,
I mixed Anaximenes and the old Greeks in with I-Ching.
As I say, I've never been a big one on it (either system really),
but there is something to saying
look around you,
all the principles
you need
are there.
Anyway, just as metal doesn't necessarilly mean metal, do the other
necessarilly need to be taken only literally?
In my co-optive individualistic interprative way, I was (for this
moment) thinking of
water as "flexibility, changeability, supleness, flowing, path-of
least resistance"
fire as "breathe of life, starfire (nuclear chemical reaction), the
moving from matter to energy, changing from one state to another"
wood as "changing back from energy to matter, systemic expression of
life"
earth as "interdependent systems"
metal as Megadeth, Anthrax, Iron Maiden (ok, I admit that I really
hadn't given this one much thought)
So, I have contemplation, listening, and reading to do.
Anyway, for some reason, I'm more comfortable with very elementary,
down to earth principles than I am with airy thoughts like "truth",
"goodness", and "excellence"
Nick Argall
> "Nick Argall" <nargall....@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
> news:VZdda.2933$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> > Not terribly useful to say that the Tao isn't a Pamela Anderson 1997
> > calendar, but it is true.
>
> Hehehe, good one.
>
> How do you know it's not? (You don't have to answer that)
Very tempting :)
> > Let's take em separately:
> >
> > - Distinctions between right and wrong
[snip]
> > - Abandoning an exclusive reliance on reason
[snip]
>
> OK, i think i get it. So this is a mean to avoid taking certain things for
granted? Maybe to keep us
> from craving even?
I never thought of it in those terms.
*stops and thinks about it in those terms for a little*
That makes sense. I wouldn't restrict it to those things, because I think
it's worth doing simply for it's own sake. I think I may have forgotten the
my original reasons.
Nick
Nick Argall
"Jaybuzin0000" <jaybuz...@cs.comm> wrote in message
news:20030317055621...@mb-cq.news.cs.com...
Very true.
And when it comes to "Follow the Feminine", that's a woman who certainly
attracts followers :)
Nick
innocent bystander
[...]
>>> Let's take em separately:
>>>
>>> - Distinctions between right and wrong
> [snip]
>>> - Abandoning an exclusive reliance on reason
> [snip]
>>
>> OK, i think i get it. So this is a mean to avoid taking certain
>> things for granted? Maybe to keep us from craving even?
>
> I never thought of it in those terms.
>
> *stops and thinks about it in those terms for a little*
>
> That makes sense. I wouldn't restrict it to those things, because I
> think it's worth doing simply for it's own sake. I think I may have
> forgotten the my original reasons.
Ooops now here's a interesteing misspell. I meant to write:
OK, i think i get it. So this is a mean to avoid taking certain things for granted? Maybe to keep us
from *carving* even?
Now, what do you think of that?
--
Listening to silence
yunlong
The following is an excerpt from one of my previous posts on the
subject of Yin-Yang-Wu-Xing,
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3512CFD8.1C50%40oakweb.com
'Interesting, according to the Chinese legend, "from 0 to 1" shows the
necessary metamorphosis, and 5 is the number:
Before the universe begin, there is chaos, as chaos cannot be
perceived, so it is called Wu, not-a-thing, as the universe begin, it
become "You," having-a-thing. Having things to breed things is
obvious, but how do we get from "nothing" to "thing"?
The observed characteristics/properties makes the path (Tao) obvious:
0 is Yin, 1 is Yang.
Yin is change, Yang is constant.
As the state of Yin is change, its meaning cannot be determined, so
it's "nothing"; as the state of change is being perceived, the idea
makes it (the state of change) constant (it has meaning), so it's a
thing.
"nothing" is 0, "thing" is 1.
The "thing" owes its origin in "nothing"; the "thing"—1—is called the
"universe." The universe is made of five elements (Wu-Xing): Metal,
Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth, and each element is the manifestation of
certain characteristics/properties:
The characteristics/properties of Metal are (like metal [changing
states]) to refrain, to condense, to contract, and etc.
The characteristics/properties of Wood are (like a tree) to grow, to
expand [like a tree], to channel, and etc.
The characteristics/properties of Water are (like water) to irrigate,
to cool, to move downward, and etc.
The characteristics/properties of Fire are (like fire) to heat, to
move upward, to expand [like fire], and etc.
The characteristics/properties of Earth are (like earth/dirt) to
support, to transform (grow), to receive, and etc.
Based on these characteristics/properties, five elements are also
developed as characteristics for ancient Chinese people to relate
themselves to their environments:
In nature,
Metal [is related] to [5] season: autumn, [5] direction: west, [5]
Qi/energy: dry, [5] transformation: harvest/collect, [5] color: white,
[5] taste: pungent, etc.
Wood to season: spring, direction: east, Qi/energy: wind,
transformation: birth, color: green, taste: sour, etc.
Water to season: winter, direction: north, Qi/energy: cold,
transformation: retain (store-up), color: black, taste: salty, etc.
Fire to season: summer, direction: south, Qi/energy: heat,
transformation: growth, color: red, taste: bitter, etc.
Earth to season: late-summer, direction: center, Qi/energy: wet,
transformation: transformation/convert, color: yellow, taste: sweet,
etc.
(These phenomenons are quite obvious if one lives in the central
mainland China.)
In our bodies,
Metal to [5] organ: lungs, [5] appearance [on face]: nose, [5]
emotion: grief, etc.
Wood to organ: lever, appearance: eyes, emotion: anger, etc.
Water to organ: kidney, appearance: ears, emotion: fear, etc.
Fire to organ: heart, appearance: tongue, emotion: joy, etc.
Earth to organ: spleen, appearance: mouth, emotion: thinking, etc.
(It should be clear that "organs" are not only meant the organs of
modern counterpart but a whole system which converts/transforms the
five elements (based on the 5 characteristics/properties) to generate
a life force which substantiates the life.)
The 5 elements/chracteristcs also interact/relate to each others in an
elaborated relationship:
The basic enhance/reduce relationship are:
Wood enhances Fire,
Fire enhances Earth,
Earth enhances Metal,
Metal enhances Water,
Water enhances Wood,
and,
Wood reduces Earth,
Earth reduces Water,
Water reduces Fire,
Fire reduces Metal,
Metal reduces Wood.
As each element/characteristic control and being controlled by each
others, a balance is reached, and life is vigor. Seeking the balance
is thus become the way of Tao of living.
Yin-Yang-Wu-Xing, "Five elements are the substance of Yin and Yang,
Yin and Yang are the movements (Qi) of five elements, Qi without
substance cannot stand (exist), substance without Qi cannot move
(transform), transformation is Yin and Yang of life," which thus lays
the foundation Tradition Chinese Medicine (TCM), which also forms the
ancient Chinese view of life.
(Source: "Traditional Chinese Medicine Fundamental theory," Shanghai
scientific technology publishing (translated))'
hope it helps, :)
IS
john leary
I would say the first principle is recognizing active aand passive
principles as summerized in the symbol Tai Chi Chuan.
And the second would be acceptance of what is.
~ john .:.
zisixi
Since John won't attempt,
to prevent rehashing
something I'm sure
has been well hashed already
in this newsgroup (guessing),
can someone else point me
to a URL or book
that precisely delineates
the differences?
active/passive,
I can see something of that.
I still like water.
acceptance? I accept.
john leary
have covered. Even though I have been reading and studying Taoist ideas for
years I did not feel qualified to speak of definitions ...since I'm still
piecing things together. I discovered the Taoist Philosophy / Religion
information by accident, but since being aware of it, I began to notice
references to it, that I think I missed or passed over before. I may be able
to find some of these them later, time not being something I have a lot of
at the moment.
But I believe the book that first made me aware of the difference was;
The Teachings of Taoist Master Chuang. by Michael Saso
Yale University Press. New Haven & London. © 1978
This book has recently been republished.
I might add my interest for many years was ceremonial magic
[western tradition] and being a fan
and student of Tai Chi & Kung Fu & Tao te Ching/I Ching I was fascinated to
learn of Tao Magic. The Chinese always do interesting spins on things and I
wanted to know their system of Talismans & spirits. The fact that they mixed
it with the Tao just made it all that more mysterious. Books on this subject
were extremely hard to find ...but this is what lead to this particular
book. I was not disappointed ...but I mention this incase you begin to
wonder
why a philosophy that says; "in pursuit of the tao everyday something is
dropped"...is encased in so many trappings!
~ John .:.
Jaybuzin0000
>zisixi wrote:
>>john wrote:
>>> I would say the first principle is recognizing active aand passive
>>> principles as summerized in the symbol Tai Chi Chuan.
>> can someone else point me
>> to a URL or book
>> that precisely delineates
>> the differences?
<begin quote from site>
Yin & Yang and the I Ching
Yin & Yang are the central themes of Daoism. The I Ching demonstrates the
application of these themes. An excerpt from the page:
"Yin originally meant 'shady, secret, dark, mysterious, cold.' It thus could
mean the shaded, north side of a mountain or the shaded, south bank of a river.
Yang in turn meant 'clear, bright, the sun, heat,' the opposite of yin and so
the lit, south side of a mountain or the lit, north bank of a river. From these
basic opposites, a complete system of opposites was elaborated. Yin represents
everything about the world that is dark, hidden, passive, receptive, yielding,
cool, soft, and feminine. Yang represents everything about the world that is
illuminated, evident, active, aggressive, controlling, hot, hard, and
masculine. Everything in the world can be identified with either yin or yang.
Earth is the ultimate yin object. Heaven is the ultimate yang object. Of the
two basic Chinese 'Ways,' Confucianism is identified with the yang aspect,
Taoism with the yin aspect."
<end quote from site>
URL from above quoted site
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/laotse.htm
zisixi
So, is the stuff with, as John puts it, "the trappings", to be
considered the religious part? And everything else is the philosophy
part?
It's not a huge deal to me, but the newsgroup is
alt.philosophy.taoism, and I've never quite been able to entirely grok
the difference from when a philosophy becomes a religion and
vice-versa. I figure it's got something to do with dogma, and
something to do with faith, and something to do with belief, but
beyond that ... ?
I'll give it a try. - So, I think religion puts beliefs into action.
Is that solely owned by religion, or can philosophy be put into
action? If it is put into action, does it become religion?
hmm. I'm a bit lost on this one.
A Wayfarer
john leary mentions the "symbol Tai Chi Chuan" in his March 20 post,
this thread:
Hey, john!
Actually, the "symbol' you're probably referring to- the circle w/ the
two equal/opposite halves, yang and yin, each containing the seed of its
opposite- is usually used to represent the state of existence called
"tai chi", also sometimes rendered as "taiji."
Tai chi chuan, or taijiquan, is an "internal" martial art that's based
on the principles expressed in the symbol. "Taiji", or "tai chi", is
frequently translated (into English, anyway) as "grand ultimate," and
"quan", or "chuan" is usually translated as "fist" or "fighting system."
Some say there is a strong taoist content in the principles of
taijiquan.
kamerm
...
> So, is the stuff with, as John puts it, "the trappings", to be
> considered the religious part? And everything else is the philosophy
> part?
>
> It's not a huge deal to me, but the newsgroup is
> alt.philosophy.taoism, and I've never quite been able to entirely grok
> the difference from when a philosophy becomes a religion and
> vice-versa. I figure it's got something to do with dogma, and
> something to do with faith, and something to do with belief, but
> beyond that ... ?
>
> I'll give it a try. - So, I think religion puts beliefs into action.
> Is that solely owned by religion, or can philosophy be put into
> action? If it is put into action, does it become religion?
>
> hmm. I'm a bit lost on this one.
Hi Zx :-)
hear's one POV which distinguishes --
a religion accepts certain concepts and adopts certain actions on FAITH
FAITH precludes the possibility of exception or contradiction --
even when circumstances appear to place articles of faith in opposition
the fault is accepted to be in the limits of the believer rather than the
FAITH
a philosophy accepts certain concepts as axioms
and a practice adopts certain actions as exemplary
but EFFECTIVE philosophy accepts the possibility of contradiction and
exception
and EFFECTIVE practice adapts exemplar to circumstance
the difference in emphasis between FAITH and EFFECTIVENESS
may be a useful distinction between religious and philosophical formulae
ymmv ;-)
-k
Jaybuzin0000
>jay'd quoted from:
>http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/laotse.htm
>
>So, is the stuff with, as John puts it, "the trappings", to be
>considered the religious part?
hmmm. I don't know.
I see a couple of responses.
Maybe John will clarify his position.
>And everything else is the philosophy part?
It's been said that in ancient
and perhaps even more modern Chinese
there were no words for philosophy and religion
and that these are entirely western constructs.
Otoh, there is chia and chiao.
An ancient Chinese historian,
in an effort to categorize schools of thought,
delineated and lumped several kettles ofishness
into broad ranges and spectrums; chia.
Chiao, if my understanding is correct, referred
more to institutionalized arrangements and stuff.
>It's not a huge deal to me, but the newsgroup is
>alt.philosophy.taoism, and I've never quite been able to entirely grok
>the difference from when a philosophy becomes a religion and
>vice-versa.
Each religion has philosophical aspects.
Usually philosophy is not religious per se.
But this hinges up on w'hat one means.
> I figure it's got something to do with dogma, and
>something to do with faith, and something to do with belief, but
>beyond that ... ?
My take is that words have meaning
and communication is of the essence.
If I know what you're talking about
and you know what I'm talking about
we can then agree or disagree. The rest
is pure semantics. We see each other's points
or we fail to understand and sling shit.
Sometimes both. Sometimes neither.
>I'll give it a try. - So, I think religion puts beliefs into action.
If that's how you choose to define it,
that can be a working definition and I can
then agree or disagree.
>Is that solely owned by religion,
>or can philosophy be put into action?
You can set it up however you choose.
Certainly philosophy can be put into action.
Non-resistence can be such a wei-wu-wei.
Religion denotes a re-tying.
If non-resistence is how you tie things together
then such a way can be religious.
Philosophy may be the love of the wisdom
of how non-resistence can work at times.
Denotations are significant.
Connotations are more inclusive.
Subtle variations exist.
> If it is put into action, does it become religion?
If that's the meaning you choose
to attach to the term then that is how you do it.
I can quote a dictionary. Others can too.
We can cite so-called authorities and argue.
But such a tack may fall into pedantics
or purely academic crap. It's fun
but may have little to do with communicating.
>hmm. I'm a bit lost on this one.
Where is somebody who has forgotten words,
I'd like to have a word with him.
David H Li
with the hope of doing a book on the influence of western religion on
Chinese culture. Thus, the question of philosophy vs. religion is of
interest to me. I have, however, rephrased the subject of an earlier
thread (shown in brackets) to that shown above, since, in that earlier
thread, this question was raised only in passing.
In one of the posts, Jaybuzin0000 wrote, inter alia:
> It's been said that in ancient
> and perhaps even more modern Chinese
> there were no words for philosophy and religion
> and that these are entirely western constructs.
On the whole, this may be so, but a clarification would be useful. Paying
respects to a variety of natural or supernatural phenomena (nowdays known
as polytheism) was a part of indigenous Chinese culture in the pre-Zhou
dynasty era (pre-1066 BCE). Since the Zhou dynasty, the focus shifted to
paying respects to past kings (by the king) or to one's ancestors (by any
son or daughter)-- actions advocated by Confucius. (In later centuries,
the literati also paid respects to Confucius as Teacher par excellence.)
Paying such respects, however, was/is not a religious act, though its exact
nature became a controversy between the pope in Rome and the emperor in
China in the 16th-17th centuries. (A presumptuous ruling by the pope
resulted in the summary expulsion of all Catholic missionaries from China
in the 1710s. Though this ruling was reversed in the 1920s, more than two
centuries and a much weaker papacy later, the irreversible damage was
done.)
Regardless, using the word "chiao" (originally meaning, simply,
"teachings") to mean "religion" (albeit with an adjective added) did not
come into being until Buddhism was imported from India in the early
centuries of the common era.
Since the Zhou dynasty, a word commonly used to represent the hundred
schools of thought -- such as that led by Confucius and that represented by
the book Dao De Jing -- is "chia". The word "philosophy" is unknown in
China -- the two characters used to translate "philosophy" into Chinese
were borrowed from the Japanese many centuries later. Early on, teachings
of Confucius were simply known as the Confucius school of thought; ditto
for the Dao school of thought. (As an aside, to this day, I have yet to
get hold of a definition -- whether good or bad or indifferent -- of the
word "philosophy". An authoritative book, the 836-page Columbia History of
Western Philosophy (1999), has hundreds of entries, but none is on
"Philosophy". I have posted an inquiry on a definition, some months ago,
on a philosophy newsgroup, but no one responded. A google search produced
scores of websites on all sorts of philosophical discussions, but none has
an entry on "philosophy." Incredible but true.) When the Analects was
translated into Latin in 1687, Confucius was accorded the title of a
philosopher, and the title of the translation becomes "Confucius, sinarum
philosophus ..."
After Buddhism -- a religion -- came to China, there was a need to develop
an indigenous religion to counter that import. Thus, Dao De Jing was
drafted to serve as the foundation of that hastily founded and impromptu
indigenous religion -- the religious Daoism (Dao chiao) thus came into
being. This is in addition to the so-called philosophical Daoism -- Dao
De Jing, per se (that is, without giving it dubious interpretation for
religious purposes) is, and remains to be, as I noted in footnote 1 in my
2001 translation, "a politico-philosophical treatise on governance."
David Li
kamerm
news:3E7D2850...@erols.com...
> (As an aside, to this day, I have yet to
> get hold of a definition -- whether good or bad or indifferent -- of the
> word "philosophy". An authoritative book, the 836-page Columbia History
of
> Western Philosophy (1999), has hundreds of entries, but none is on
> "Philosophy". I have posted an inquiry on a definition, some months ago,
> on a philosophy newsgroup, but no one responded. A google search produced
> scores of websites on all sorts of philosophical discussions, but none has
> an entry on "philosophy." Incredible but true.) When the Analects was
> translated into Latin in 1687, Confucius was accorded the title of a
> philosopher, and the title of the translation becomes "Confucius, sinarum
> philosophus ..."
>
> After Buddhism -- a religion -- came to China, there was a need to develop
> an indigenous religion to counter that import. Thus, Dao De Jing was
> drafted to serve as the foundation of that hastily founded and impromptu
> indigenous religion -- the religious Daoism (Dao chiao) thus came into
> being. This is in addition to the so-called philosophical Daoism -- Dao
> De Jing, per se (that is, without giving it dubious interpretation for
> religious purposes) is, and remains to be, as I noted in footnote 1 in my
> 2001 translation, "a politico-philosophical treatise on governance."
>
> David Li
Hi David :-)
try this on:
philosophy: a conceptual system including at a minimum symbols,
axioms for the proper combination of these symbols, and theories
derived from nontrivial sequences of axiomatic operations. An applied
philosophy additionally has mapping axioms for translating real world
observations into the symbolic structure of the philosophy, and for
translating symbolic philosophic structures into observables.
If this sounds a lot like mathematics, then that's because from this POV,
mathematics is a particularly well developed and formalized philosophy.
Unfortunately, under such a definition, taoism wouldn't be a philosophy,
since it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
("naming"),
by calling innate sense and skill to witness against the fallacy of
mistaking
a menu for edible food (unless it's a rice paper menu, off course ;-)
your thoughts?
-k
bookburn
readings/research program
> with the hope of doing a book on the influence of western religion
on
> Chinese culture. Thus, the question of philosophy vs. religion is
of
> interest to me. I have, however, rephrased the subject of an
earlier
> thread (shown in brackets) to that shown above, since, in that
earlier
> thread, this question was raised only in passing.
>
> In one of the posts, Jaybuzin0000 wrote, inter alia:
The large issue of West meeting East in terms of religion-philosophy
reminds me of the Christianizing of the Roman Empire and its impact
on Judaism, where there was an exchange and synthesis of ideologies;
or, maybe it was just acculturation. I understand Judaism was
strong on philosophy in terms of social cohesion, moral
underpinnings, and rigorous self-examination, with little science;
whereas Greek and Roman philosophy was strong in terms of sciences
and rational thought, but pessimistic or stoic. The result is
supposed to have been like "a rich marriage," where Judaism absorbed
sciences and Romans ethics and a basis of optimism.
I suppose there would be a difference between philosophy as a
science and speculative philosophy. I assume principals of Taoism
are supported by numerous traditional Eastern disciplines that when
tested by Western scientific standards have virtue. I like
pragmatism as the kind of scientifically respectable philosophy
useful to East and West that can approach Taoism.
Just what is developing in Taoism, per se, and how, is what I would
like to know. It seems there is a danger of Western culture taking
Taoism out of traditional context and through language and media
popularization distorting the message and losing the roots.
bookburn
Jaybuzin0000
>a definition
philosophy is the love of wisdom.
the philosophy of philosophy is to seek out
and boldly go where no-mind has gone before.
discovering new worlds and kicking up lots of dust,
at times full of much sound
and furry.
yunlong
> "David H Li" <dav...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3E7D2850...@erols.com...
> > (As an aside, to this day, I have yet to
> > get hold of a definition -- whether good or bad or indifferent -- of the
> > word "philosophy". An authoritative book, the 836-page Columbia History
> of
> > Western Philosophy (1999), has hundreds of entries, but none is on
> > "Philosophy". I have posted an inquiry on a definition, some months ago,
> > on a philosophy newsgroup, but no one responded. A google search produced
> > scores of websites on all sorts of philosophical discussions, but none has
> > an entry on "philosophy." Incredible but true.)
That's to say how people use the word yet without a firm grasp of the
meaning.
> > When the Analects was
> > translated into Latin in 1687, Confucius was accorded the title of a
> > philosopher, and the title of the translation becomes "Confucius, sinarum
> > philosophus ..."
> >
> > After Buddhism -- a religion -- came to China, there was a need to develop
> > an indigenous religion to counter that import. Thus, Dao De Jing was
> > drafted to serve as the foundation of that hastily founded and impromptu
> > indigenous religion -- the religious Daoism (Dao chiao) thus came into
> > being. This is in addition to the so-called philosophical Daoism -- Dao
> > De Jing, per se (that is, without giving it dubious interpretation for
> > religious purposes) is, and remains to be, as I noted in footnote 1 in my
> > 2001 translation, "a politico-philosophical treatise on governance."
> >
> > David Li
>
> Hi David :-)
>
> try this on:
>
> philosophy:
In Chinese, Zhe-Xue (philosophy) means [any] a body of knowledge that
quests for the Truth/True Reality,
[Zhe: deep thought]
> a conceptual system including at a minimum symbols,
> axioms for the proper combination of these symbols, and theories
> derived from nontrivial sequences of axiomatic operations. An applied
> philosophy additionally has mapping axioms for translating real world
> observations into the symbolic structure of the philosophy, and for
> translating symbolic philosophic structures into observables.
While logic remains the most consistent and complete reasoning
mechanism,
>
> If this sounds a lot like mathematics, then that's because from this POV,
> mathematics is a particularly well developed and formalized philosophy.
It fails when it excluded the realm of human emotions, which are also
a major part of "True Reality."
>
> Unfortunately, under such a definition, taoism wouldn't be a philosophy,
> since it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
> ("naming"),
Yes, as "it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
('naming')," which is also a main issue that is embedded in Zhe-Xue's
pursue/quest (what makes a naming true?).
> by calling
Not necessarily by calling, but a description of "state of being," the
spirit of questing for truth remains free,
> innate sense and skill to witness against the fallacy of
> mistaking
> a menu for edible food (unless it's a rice paper menu, off course ;-)
Jia, though literally means "family," it also means any one with
special knowledge or skills.
Jiao means teaching; Zhong-Jiao, the Chinese equivalent of "religion,"
actually means "fundamental teaching," and Chinese has no word for
"God religion."
>
> your thoughts?
The chanting of "dao ke dao..." turns it into a dogma, and the free
spirit of [Tao] pursue dies, and the rest of it drifts into empty.
:)
IS
>
> -k
kamerm
news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<PM9fa.172457$b8.37...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > philosophy:
>
> In Chinese, Zhe-Xue (philosophy) means [any] a body of knowledge that
> quests for the Truth/True Reality,
>
> [Zhe: deep thought]
"a body of knowledge questing"
IS, yer sounding like me, perceiving intent and action in non-physical being
;-)
but, perhaps, "a method for disciplining minds, and
aligning them more effectively with reality"?
was more what you meant ?-)
> > a conceptual system including at a minimum symbols,
> > axioms for the proper combination of these symbols, and theories
> > derived from nontrivial sequences of axiomatic operations. An applied
> > philosophy additionally has mapping axioms for translating real world
> > observations into the symbolic structure of the philosophy, and for
> > translating symbolic philosophic structures into observables.
>
> While logic remains the most consistent and complete reasoning
> mechanism,
though th'airs that hand-wavy "inductive" part where the symbols
axioms, and even choice of theoretic strategy come from
which has been so hard to nail down (eg. teach to a computer)
> > If this sounds a lot like mathematics, then that's because from this
POV,
> > mathematics is a particularly well developed and formalized philosophy.
>
> It fails when it excluded the realm of human emotions, which are also
> a major part of "True Reality."
application has consistently been the most challenging part of philosophy;
in no small part due to the relative underdevelopment of inductive
methodologies
relative to deductive. CC Yuan's "Creativity & Taoism" is a rare step in
that
direction.
> > Unfortunately, under such a definition, taoism wouldn't be a philosophy,
> > since it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
> > ("naming"),
>
> Yes, as "it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
> ('naming')," which is also a main issue that is embedded in Zhe-Xue's
> pursue/quest
> (what makes a naming true?).
readily aligns with "punch in the nose" reality
> > by calling
>
> Not necessarily by calling, but a description of "state of being," the
> spirit of questing for truth remains free,
evocative communication's as important as denotive communication
unfortunately totally different personality types prefer/excel at each
hence stale logical masturbation and useless (but prettily flowery)
sentiments
but so rare, sensitive writing that makes sense
> > innate sense and skill to witness against the fallacy of
> > mistaking
> > a menu for edible food (unless it's a rice paper menu, off course ;-)
>
> Jia, though literally means "family," it also means any one with
> special knowledge or skills.
>
> Jiao means teaching; Zhong-Jiao, the Chinese equivalent of "religion,"
> actually means "fundamental teaching," and Chinese has no word for
> "God religion."
now THERE's a reversal --
by clinging exclusively to Lao&Chuang, are we being fundamentalist
(hence Jiao)
while by exploring skilfull application (Sun-Tzu, nei-tan, i-ching, TCM,
etc)
we'd be Jia in the CHINESE sesnse?!
> > your thoughts?
>
> The chanting of "dao ke dao..." turns it into a dogma, and the free
> spirit of [Tao] pursue dies, and the rest of it drifts into empty.
no sale -- both you AND j
have and continue to contribute greatly :-)
> :)
> IS
>
> >
> > -k
Shangchi Li
Shamanism.
Then there is the Taoism which is a way of life, or a way of thought.
You could be, say, a Methodist but also live the philosophy of Tao, or
appreciate the wisdom.
As a Christian, you probably wouldn't practice the religion of Taoism.
The Tao is sometimes defined as The Way, and in that context, it is a
way of life. Taoism can improve your christianity or judaism, or
hinduism.
Taoism + Buddhism = Zen (Chan, chen)
Shangchi Li
http://www.sacred-texts.com
Tai Chi is based on Taoism and in my opinion is more of an external
martial arts whereas Chi Kung is more internal.
They both use the Yin/Yang idea and this is where Kung Fu gets its
symbol, or uses the Yin/Yang as a symbol.
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<PM9fa.172457$b8.37...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> ...
> > > philosophy:
> >
> > In Chinese, Zhe-Xue (philosophy) means [any] a body of knowledge that
> > quests for the Truth/True Reality,
> >
> > [Zhe: deep thought]
>
> "a body of knowledge questing"
> IS, yer sounding like me, perceiving intent and action in non-physical being
> ;-)
>
> but, perhaps, "a method for disciplining minds, and
> aligning them more effectively with reality"?
> was more what you meant ?-)
A question depicts an answer, an [intermediate] answer modifies the
question, which depicts another [intermediate] answer, when the
questions and answers are played out, at the moment of realization,
"the" answer is found and the question disappears, and that is what we
Chinese call Hui, "know"--"a body of knowledge."
>
> > > a conceptual system including at a minimum symbols,
> > > axioms for the proper combination of these symbols, and theories
> > > derived from nontrivial sequences of axiomatic operations. An applied
> > > philosophy additionally has mapping axioms for translating real world
> > > observations into the symbolic structure of the philosophy, and for
> > > translating symbolic philosophic structures into observables.
> >
> > While logic remains the most consistent and complete reasoning
> > mechanism,
>
> though th'airs that hand-wavy "inductive" part where the symbols
> axioms, and even choice of theoretic strategy come from
> which has been so hard to nail down (eg. teach to a computer)
A computer cannot think but compute, however, if you can figure out
how to set up a flag that reflects [the true] Yin and Yang properties,
it may tell you a different story.
>
> > > If this sounds a lot like mathematics, then that's because from this
> POV,
> > > mathematics is a particularly well developed and formalized philosophy.
> >
> > It fails when it excluded the realm of human emotions, which are also
> > a major part of "True Reality."
>
> application has consistently been the most challenging part of philosophy;
> in no small part due to the relative underdevelopment of inductive
> methodologies
> relative to deductive.
Fundamentally, in logical reasoning, in "deductive," it lacks the
"grand principle" to deduct from, and in "inductive," it lacks the
"terminal data" to support the principle.
> CC Yuan's "Creativity & Taoism" is a rare step in
> that
> direction.
Not sure what direction is that.
>
> > > Unfortunately, under such a definition, taoism wouldn't be a philosophy,
> > > since it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
> > > ("naming"),
> >
> > Yes, as "it addresses the limits and failures of symbolic constructs
> > ('naming')," which is also a main issue that is embedded in Zhe-Xue's
> > pursue/quest
>
> > (what makes a naming true?).
>
> readily aligns with "punch in the nose" reality
That will work.
>
> > > by calling
> >
> > Not necessarily by calling, but a description of "state of being," the
> > spirit of questing for truth remains free,
>
> evocative communication's as important as denotive communication
> unfortunately totally different personality types prefer/excel at each
> hence stale logical masturbation and useless (but prettily flowery)
> sentiments
> but so rare, sensitive writing that makes sense
The difference between the English/western and Chinese/oriental doing
knowledge is that an English/western knowledge begins with a
definition then proceeds to find its reality, and a Chinese/oriental
knowledge begins with an experience then proceeds to find ways to
describe it, that is, the answer may be known, before the question is
asked.
>
> > > innate sense and skill to witness against the fallacy of
> > > mistaking
> > > a menu for edible food (unless it's a rice paper menu, off course ;-)
> >
> > Jia, though literally means "family," it also means any one with
> > special knowledge or skills.
> >
> > Jiao means teaching; Zhong-Jiao, the Chinese equivalent of "religion,"
> > actually means "fundamental teaching," and Chinese has no word for
> > "God religion."
>
> now THERE's a reversal --
>
> by clinging exclusively to Lao&Chuang, are we being fundamentalist
> (hence Jiao)
> while by exploring skilfull application (Sun-Tzu, nei-tan, i-ching, TCM,
> etc)
> we'd be Jia in the CHINESE sesnse?!
It's all in the discipline/practice [to realize that].
>
> > > your thoughts?
> >
> > The chanting of "dao ke dao..." turns it into a dogma, and the free
> > spirit of [Tao] pursue dies, and the rest of it drifts into empty.
>
> no sale
No selling intended, just to describe a state of being [for the given
conditions].
> -- both you AND j
> have and continue to contribute greatly :-)
Bozo Taoism? No thanks, :)
IS
>
> > :)
> > IS
> >
> > >
> > > -k
kamerm
news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> > > > philosophy:
...
> A question depicts an answer, an [intermediate] answer modifies the
> question, which depicts another [intermediate] answer, when the
> questions and answers are played out, at the moment of realization,
> "the" answer is found and the question disappears, and that is what we
> Chinese call Hui, "know"--"a body of knowledge."
when the quest'ion finds its match
the energy of the quest is discharged
and something is understood
until change invalidates what's been understood
and a new quest begins
('course grasping the root's never invalidated :-)
...
> > CC Yuan's "Creativity & Taoism" is a rare step in
> > that
> > direction.
>
> Not sure what direction is that.
inductive, but Creativity&Taoism's -z's fun
(past references in Google)
...
> The difference between the English/western and Chinese/oriental doing
> knowledge is that an English/western knowledge begins with a
> definition then proceeds to find its reality, and a Chinese/oriental
> knowledge begins with an experience then proceeds to find ways to
> describe it
nice, thanks :-)
> that is, the answer may be known, before the question is
> asked.
maybe. or sometimes the process may reform the question
and create a new answer
> > > Jia, though literally means "family," it also means any one with
> > > special knowledge or skills.
> > >
> > > Jiao means teaching; Zhong-Jiao, the Chinese equivalent of "religion,"
> > > actually means "fundamental teaching," and Chinese has no word for
> > > "God religion."
...
> It's all in the discipline/practice [to realize that].
Jia's baseless with Jiao
Jiao's useless without Jia?
...
> Bozo Taoism? No thanks, :)
> IS
can't argue personal tastes...
j loosens up people's fixations --
that's often a useful (and non-trivial) contribution
Bozo the Clown was quite an effective teacher
and walking in floppy shoe's not easy :-)
(not that i'll get either of you to see in each other
what i see ;-)
-k
Jaybuzin0000
>-i wrote:
>>-k wrote:
>> > > > philosophy:
>> The difference
A difference
>>between the English/western and Chinese/oriental doing
>> knowledge is
not necessarily is, but may be, at times
>>that an English/western knowledge begins with a
>> definition then proceeds to find its reality,
not always. but sometimes, perhaps.
usually it's the other way around.
phenomena occur. explanations are sought.
experiences happen. articulations result.
experiments are performed.
independent verifiability is called science.
>>and a Chinese/oriental
>> knowledge begins with an experience then proceeds to find ways to
>> describe it
with an organic view, 10k things emerge.
with a ceramic view, subject\predicate is inherent.
language may play a major major role in calling.
an occultist, ore esotericist, may be be yond
realms of science and logic, inaway.
>can't argue personal tastes...
two-each, one may own.
as a BeV, sew be low.
>(not that i'll get either of you to see in each other
>what i see ;-)
eye seas mulch
if\w'hen knotall
each view is unique.
when modems shake
hands understanding happens.
-chirpinging
{8-])))
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<M%lfa.179268$b8.39...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> ...
> > > > > philosophy:
> ...
> > A question depicts an answer, an [intermediate] answer modifies the
> > question, which depicts another [intermediate] answer, when the
> > questions and answers are played out, at the moment of realization,
> > "the" answer is found and the question disappears, and that is what we
> > Chinese call Hui, "know"--"a body of knowledge."
>
> when the quest'ion finds its match
> the energy of the quest is discharged
> and something is understood
> until change invalidates what's been understood
> and a new quest begins
or remains the part of on-going "question and answer"?
> ('course grasping the root's never invalidated :-)
Return to the root is a teaching of Taoism.
>
> ...
> > > CC Yuan's "Creativity & Taoism" is a rare step in
> > > that
> > > direction.
> >
> > Not sure what direction is that.
>
> inductive, but Creativity&Taoism's -z's fun
> (past references in Google)
>
> ...
> > The difference between the English/western and Chinese/oriental doing
> > knowledge is that an English/western knowledge begins with a
> > definition then proceeds to find its reality, and a Chinese/oriental
> > knowledge begins with an experience then proceeds to find ways to
> > describe it
>
> nice, thanks :-)
Yes, they're shown in the structure of fine literary works, thanks.
>
>
> > that is, the answer may be known, before the question is
> > asked.
>
> maybe. or sometimes the process may reform the question
> and create a new answer
Exhausting All questions is also a way/state of Tai-Chi.
>
> > > > Jia, though literally means "family," it also means any one with
> > > > special knowledge or skills.
> > > >
> > > > Jiao means teaching; Zhong-Jiao, the Chinese equivalent of "religion,"
> > > > actually means "fundamental teaching," and Chinese has no word for
> > > > "God religion."
> ...
> > It's all in the discipline/practice [to realize that].
>
> Jia's baseless with Jiao
> Jiao's useless without Jia?
Jia/philosophy lays the path of a discipline, and Jiao/religion is a
practice that reflects the interpretation of such a discipline, imo.
>
> ...
> > Bozo Taoism? No thanks, :)
> > IS
>
> can't argue personal tastes...
Don't think anybody here cares how others' personal tastes are,
however, the tastes may reflect one's hidden personality/character.
>
> j loosens up people's fixations --
Or confuses them with his wordswords,
> that's often a useful (and non-trivial) contribution
yup, he is a fine example that the [classical traditional] Chinese
Taoism teaching advocated not to be.
> Bozo the Clown was quite an effective teacher
Not if the flowery language only to show his shrewdness.
> and walking in floppy shoe's not easy :-)
actually, it is quite easy when one is lack of self-respect and
shameless.
>
> (not that i'll get either of you to see in each other
> what i see ;-)
Methinks we both know what he was saying, however, whether or not he
knew what he was saying is another question,
"It's interesting to me
how and why people say what they say.
Some things are obviously false
and yet the author may think a statement true."--JB--
[Get the idea what he was trying to imply?]
What is the "obviously false"?
An ex-Jewish, college dropout [and probably failed anything he tried],
little background in Chinese culture and history, cannot read Chinese,
nor know Chinese language speech pattern, with a little knowledge in
Pin-Yin and a couple of translated TTCs, and a skill of cut&paste, he
actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
To get ahead of sages by way of bozoing is an interesting thinking.
:)
IS
>
> -k
Jaybuzin0000
>mk wrote:
>> Bozo the Clown was quite an effective teacher
>
>Not if the flowery language only to show his shrewdness.
presump'tions project inner workings.
some couch a phrase with an hypothetical
and presume a truth contain th'air-in.
>> j loosens up people's fixations --
some see god.
some hear chants.
in an house of mirrors
teh bridge wobbles.
>Or confuses them with his wordswords,
some are confused.
some sea beyond.
>> and walking in floppy shoe's not easy :-)
>
>actually, it is quite easy
>when one is lack of self-respect and shameless.
some shun shame.
it reveals their teh.
some value self-respect.
fur sum raisons.
>> (not that i'll get either of you to see in each other
>> what i see ;-)
>
>Methinks we both know what he was saying,
some think they think they know.
some know that they know that they know.
> however, whether or not he
>knew what he was saying is another question,
some have ears.
some listen.
some actually hear.
some project and think.
some quote and cut and paste.
>"It's interesting to me
>how and why people say what they say.
>Some things are obviously false
>and yet the author may think a statement true."--JB--
>[Get the idea what he was trying to imply?]
sum dew.
some do knot.
>What is the "obviously false"?
>[and probably failed anything he tried],
some project and presume.
>To get ahead of sages by way of
Unism
![{:-]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUGVaoKRdKuRuCt__DoTUxCWAUHbGm37q5EqVmsiWwbtNDu7w=s40-c)
{:-]
> "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<v4Hfa.194959$b8.43...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > "kamerm" <kam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<M%lfa.179268$b8.39...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > ...
> > > > > > philosophy:
> Jia/philosophy lays the path of a discipline, and Jiao/religion is a
> practice that reflects the interpretation of such a discipline, imo.
interpretat'ions, ergo, vary.
some ions go a-charging. sum resistesteasy.
some batshit and hangs a round
and a merry go round
n round n round
> > can't argue personal tastes...
>
> Don't think anybody here cares how others' personal tastes are,
> however, the tastes may reflect one's hidden personality/character.
cutinging and pastinging
does Cook Ting apply heat?
Dew One Evercarve?
row row rowing
one's b'oat
merrily
trolls hang a round
as batshit in a cave crossing
happy fish bridge n'ear ferris wheel
under a really big top spinning
> "It's interesting to me
> how and why people say what they say.
this remains true, two-me.
of great interest. drawing imaginary lines.
j'est imagines.
> Some things are obviously false
> and yet the author may think a statement true."--JB--
jah-mon; this remains true, to-me.
> An ex-Jewish,
too-me, this statement is an obvious false-hood.
for me to become an ex-Jew is absurd.
and yet the author of such a statement
may actually think this statement to be true.
for Ichin to become an ex-Chinese may be plausible.
Perhaps Ichin is a citizen of the States
and considers hims'elf to be ex-Chinese. I really don't know.
Perhaps Ichin never became a citizen.
To be in a country, use a language, and deem
that a language is inferior is a dao.
Such a dao may reflect a discipline.
Ore knots. Perhaps a religion.
Perhaps it is chang dao.
>college dropout
Jay stopped furthering education thrice.
>[and probably failed anything he tried],
After attaining very high honors, w'hat else remains?
After an apex, loss of desire may result.
Some are motivated to gain degrees, other tire
and retire from such games and schools of thought.
Some go to another state, of mind, or country.
They may learn and know and not
> nor know ... language speech pattern,
such is a dao.
>with a little knowledge in
a this dao or a that dao.
> To get ahead of sages by way ... is an interesting thinking.
some say that when a great sage appears
great a great thief, may also be scene
too ape ears. some say chang dao exists.
some say taoism is about something physical.
some say taoism reflects up on confucianism.
some say unism subsumes taoism.
prehaps alt.unism cud
be a subnewsgroup
in the grove
> :)
> IS
>
> >
> > -k
zisixi
> An ex-Jewish, college dropout [and probably failed anything he tried],
> little background in Chinese culture and history, cannot read Chinese,
> nor know Chinese language speech pattern, with a little knowledge in
> Pin-Yin and a couple of translated TTCs, and a skill of cut&paste, he
> actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
>
> To get ahead of sages by way of bozoing is an interesting thinking.
>
> :)
> IS
This saddens me.
I was hoping
to grasp
Chinese Taoism
Since
my knowledge of
Jiantizi is rusty
and
my knowledge of
fantizi are dusty
I read mostly
translations
I must also confess
I've not yet
finished college
and I will admit
the religion
of my childhood
might no longer
want me
I'm sure
that to some
my approach to Daoism
may seem
quite foolish
that I might not
grasp Chinese Taoism
because of these,
This saddens me
I was hoping
to grasp
Chinese Taoism
I suppose
I'll have to settle
for Daoism
Jaybuzin0000
>-IS expressed his energy thus,
>>he
>> actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
some self-appointed enlightened masters
may actually think they know what others think.
>This saddens me.
>
>I was hoping
>to grasp
>Chinese Taoism
have you ever known a happy animal
other than a human being?
>Since
>my knowledge of
>Jiantizi is rusty
some see meaning in chirps of birds.
>and
>my knowledge of
>fantizi are dusty
sum sea nonsensycles
riding rounds on flat tracks tracking
>I read mostly
>translations
who can say,
with a little knowledge
of the English language,
if an interpretation is correct
oar if nuances are too subtle
>I must also confess
>
>I've not yet
>finished college
I finished twice.
Some never finish learning.
Some say unlearning is a dao.
>and I will admit
>the religion
>of my childhood
>might no longer
>want me
some religions can be that way.
each dao is a dao.
some terms refer to blood.
as if a person can stop being
black or white or green, ribbit.
some names name, and yet
what is named is not constant,
nor ordinary. some may hear
chanting in the tones of others.
some see god. funny t'hats.
>I'm sure
>that to some
>my approach to Daoism
>may seem
>quite foolish
do you laugh much?
>that I might not
>grasp Chinese Taoism
>because of these,
>
>This saddens me
>
>I was hoping
>to grasp
>Chinese Taoism
perhaps you can use a teacher.
are you searching for One?
>I suppose
>I'll have to settle
>for Daoism
cud be wise
food fur thoughts
zisixi
> >zisixi wrote:
> >jay'd quoted from:
>
> >http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/laotse.htm
> >
> >So, is the stuff with, as John puts it, "the trappings", to be
> >considered the religious part?
>
> hmmm. I don't know.
> I see a couple of responses.
> Maybe John will clarify his position.
>
> >And everything else is the philosophy part?
>
> It's been said that in ancient
> and perhaps even more modern Chinese
> there were no words for philosophy and religion
> and that these are entirely western constructs.
> Otoh, there is chia and chiao.
>
> An ancient Chinese historian,
> in an effort to categorize schools of thought,
> delineated and lumped several kettles ofishness
> into broad ranges and spectrums; chia.
> Chiao, if my understanding is correct, referred
> more to institutionalized arrangements and stuff.
>
Not that I'll get to it in the near future, but which historian?
I used to think that I knew religion when I saw it, and it looked to
me a lot like kamerm discribed it.
Now that I've found that my beliefs line up somewhat parallel with
Daoism, I've begun to wonder if the affinity would be strong enough
for me to answer, "Daoist" if someone asked what my religion was.
I'm not looking to "join" anything that I'm not already a part of.
I've figured out most of the key tenant of my belief system a while
back. I've just recently (a few years now I suppose) found that most
of my beliefs don't disagree with Daoism as they often do with other
belief systems/philosophies/religions.
Anyway, I'm trying to explore and test that affinity. This is why I
asked the principles question, and this is also why I asked the
religion/philosophy question. The answers I come to for these
questions won't change my beliefs drastically, but it might help me in
expressing them.
Thanks for exploring with me.
zisixi
ask both of my questions (principles, and philosophy/religon).
I have friends who follow various religious paths. Each of these
paths seems to have clear, fairly unambiguous principles which clearly
delineate who gets to be "in", and who isn't. Often these principles
are expressed as short little booklets for those curious, or for those
who are conversion targets.
The various branches of Christianity I was exposed to in my youth said
you had to do some combination of the following to be "in":
-say a certain prayer ("I accept Jesus ...")
-go through a water ritual (baptism, dunked or sprinkled)
-speak in a language foreign to you (glosalalia, or speaking in
toungues)
-participate in a food ritual (Communion, the Eucharist)
My Mormon friends added a few to this, but I don't remember all of it.
My Jewish friends said that someone's mother had to be a Jew, and that
you have to be circumcised (if male). There may have been more, but
it was pretty specific.
Bhudists have the eightfold path (don't have any Bhudist friends
outside of this NG).
My Muslim friends have the pillars of Islam.
Anyway, you get the picture.
Over the past few months I've been haunting this grove, I've read a
lot of "I'm not a Taoist, but I know about Taoists when I see'em, and
your no Taoist", or "A real sage would ...", or "What you just
expressed isn't very Taoist", or "it doesn't say that in TTC or ZZ, so
it's not Taoist", type of postings. They don't change my beliefs, but
they do make me wonder if, to be a Taoist, even though many tout the
"openness", one needs to
-be Chinese
-read and speak Chinese
-Believe only what is in TTC or ZZ, and not disagree or differ
I say this with a hint of sarcasm, but not too much. I'm really
wondering if some actually have these criteria in mind when they say,
"Taoist". If so, I guess I'll go back to describing myself as one who
believes in chaos.
Jaybuzin0000
>jay'd said something or other:
>Not that I'll get to it in the near future, but which historian?
The Ssu-ma wrestlers of ancient history
http://www.chss.iup.edu/baumler/ssuma.html
were a father-son tag team.
>Now that I've found that my beliefs line up somewhat parallel with
>Daoism, I've begun to wonder if the affinity would be strong enough
>for me to answer, "Daoist" if someone asked what my religion was.
For me, being a metaphysician, religions
are as hats worn, or tools used, for any number of porpoises.
Being such as I am One undivided, a name is a tag.
Playing tag can be fun. Are you it?
>Thanks for exploring with me.
To cling to any identity may turn problematic
in that things may arise that don't fit a paradigm.
Wearing loose fitting clothes may allow One room
two breadths a way.
>> Where is somebody who has forgotten words,
>> I'd like to have a word with him.
It's been said that the emergence process,
from none to one to two, three, and 10k is reversible.
When one identifies with One, or all things, or the
entire Universe as being one's integral Being, t'hat is
a way to s'ink teh teeth. Identifying with Non-being,
or with nothing or none, is also a way.
>Anyway, I'm trying to explore and test that affinity. This is why I
>asked the principles question, and this is also why I asked the
>religion/philosophy question. The answers I come to for these
>questions won't change my beliefs drastically, but it might help me in
>expressing them.
It may help to qualify statements, e.g., "in many ways
I consider myself to be a this\that."
-fwiw
{8-])))
Jaybuzin0000
>I'm really
>wondering if some actually have these criteria in mind when they say,
>"Taoist".
Lots of confusion may result from words.
An interpretation of "names" and "naming"
may be pointed at in TTC 1.2, ming ke ming
fei chang ming. Does that sound like a chant?
[-survey results being tabulated.]
>If so, I guess I'll go back to describing myself as one who
>believes in chaos.
Such a term is also knot width out confus'ions.
H'ears a link-t'hat may be of interestinging.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/perp.html
Jaybuzin0000
>zisixi wondered about:
>>jay'd said something or other:
>The Ssu-ma wrestlers of ancient history
>http://www.chss.iup.edu/baumler/ssuma.html
>>Thanks for exploring with me.
in actually reading the linked article,
in search of chia\chiao and such-wise,
in a phraseochord noting struck
"As the twenty-eight constellations revolve
about the North Star, as the thirty spokes of a
wheel come together at the hub, revolving
endlessly without stop, so the ministers,
assisting like arms and legs, faithful and
trustworthy, in true moral spirit serve their
lord and ruler: of them I made the thirty
Hereditary Houses."
doth a daoist scoff?
ore simply, One points.
"'In 98 B.C., because he dared to speak out in
defense of a military leader whom Emperor
Wu and the rest of the court believed had
disgraced himself, Ssu-ma Ch'ien was
condemned to suffer the punishment of castration. "'
ouch!
"If I fell before the law and were executed, it
would make no more difference to most
people than one hair off nine oxen, for I was
nothing but a mere ant to them."
hmmm.
Here's another link
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/
"It was not until the Han dynasty (206
B.C.E.-220 C.E.), when the teachings of Laozi,
Zhuangzi, and others were seen to share
certain insights centering on the concept of
Dao, that they were classified together under
the rubric of philosophical “Daoism” (daojia). "
-fwiw
yunlong
.....
>
> Over the past few months I've been haunting this grove, I've read a
> lot of "I'm not a Taoist, but I know about Taoists when I see'em, and
> your no Taoist", or "A real sage would ...", or "What you just
> expressed isn't very Taoist", or "it doesn't say that in TTC or ZZ, so
> it's not Taoist", type of postings. They don't change my beliefs, but
> they do make me wonder if, to be a Taoist, even though many tout the
> "openness", one needs to
>
> -be Chinese
Being Chinese is not a requirement for being a Taoist, but honesty is,
> -read and speak Chinese
for in the realm of wordless/no-mind, only honesty can make you feel
right, it is in such rightness Tao may be realized.
> -Believe only what is in TTC or ZZ, and not disagree or differ
Yup, turning a philosophy to a dogma is always a short way out.
:)
IS
>
> I say this with a hint of sarcasm, .....
yunlong
> -IS expressed his energy thus,
> > An ex-Jewish,
"Ex-": after he abandoned his Jewish tradition in favor of Chinese
Taoism,
> college dropout [and probably failed anything he tried],
cannot learn, and cannot follow,
> > little background in Chinese culture and history, cannot read Chinese,
> > nor know Chinese language speech pattern, with a little knowledge in
> > Pin-Yin and a couple of translated TTCs, and a skill of cut&paste, he
> > actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
and ended up being a verbiage.
It remains me the story that CT told,
A boy from Yan who went to a foreign state to learn their fancy steps,
which he cannot learn, while lost his own steps, he found no way to
walk but to crawl home.--CT 17--
Lost his dignity and bankrupted his original character all for the
vanity of being different, that's sad.
> >
> > To get ahead of sages by way of bozoing is an interesting thinking.
why not just to invent a seven-foot hill to claim that he is on top?
the seven minutes frost would be tasted as good even if it's
imaginary?
> >
> > :)
> > IS
>
> This saddens me.
>
> I was hoping
> to grasp
> Chinese Taoism
Just talk about won't help either.
>
> Since
> my knowledge of
> Jiantizi is rusty
> and
> my knowledge of
> fantizi are dusty
useful knowledge usually comes with hard-earned experience of an
action well done.
>
> I read mostly
> translations
better not to read them.
>
> I must also confess
>
> I've not yet
> finished college
college graduate is not a requirement in pursuing Tao, nevertheless,
it reflects one's knowledge base and stamina in pursuing.
>
> and I will admit
> the religion
> of my childhood
> might no longer
> want me
maybe a blessing, why do you need a religion?
>
> I'm sure
> that to some
> my approach to Daoism
> may seem
> quite foolish
better yet, facing yourself squarely, i.e. honestly.
>
> that I might not
> grasp Chinese Taoism
> because of these,
no can't do?
>
> This saddens me
then, it would be.
>
> I was hoping
> to grasp
> Chinese Taoism
do you walk the walk?
>
> I suppose
> I'll have to settle
> for Daoism
or just talk the talk?
:)
IS
Jaybuzin0000
>zisixi quoted ichin writing and also wrote:
>> -IS expressed his energy thus,
>> > An ex-Jewish,
>
>"Ex-": after he abandoned his Jewish tradition in favor of Chinese
>Taoism,
some think they know what others have done
and espouse what they think others are
in favor of, oar knots. they talk lots of talk.
>> college dropout [and probably failed anything he tried],
>
>cannot learn,
some enjoy leaping to conclusions
and make blanket statements about others.
thinking they know another's capability,
they may be deluded, or simply trolling.
talking lots of talk, they contend this\that.
>and cannot follow,
some may wish to teach
and consider themselves masters.
they may wish that others would follow.
having no license to teach, no credibility
as it were, they may play a round on usenet,
set up a website, proclaim that they are
enlightened, and pass judgement.
>and ended up being a verbiage.
they may, for example,
think of themselves as a Xian-Sheng (sensei),
>It remains me the story that CT told,
>
>A boy from Yan who went to a foreign state
perhaps the United States
>to learn their fancy steps,
>which he cannot learn, while lost his own steps, he found no way to
>walk but to crawl home.--CT 17--
along they way they might have
"found the way of gravity, thus enlightened in Tao,"
they may think all sorts of thoughts
>Lost his dignity and bankrupted his original character all for the
>vanity of being different, that's sad.
some are simply who they are,
be it clown, student, dropout, etc..
some think that others are who they say.
such thinking leads rounds and a round.
>why not just to invent a seven-foot hill to claim that he is on top?
perhaps such as
'in Alaska "back" mountains '
>the seven minutes frost would be tasted as good even if it's
>imaginary?
such is how life can be.
>Just talk about won't help either.
some enjoy talking.
they may spend countless hours
developing web sites or in usenet groups.
some may have better things to do
but remain here none-the-less.
funny, t'hats.
>useful knowledge usually comes with hard-earned experience of an
>action well done.
some dismiss the actions of others.
>> I read mostly
>> translations
>
>better not to read them.
learning another language
may not meet the standards of some.
passing judgement, interpretations vary.
>college graduate is not a requirement in pursuing Tao, nevertheless,
>it reflects one's knowledge base and stamina in pursuing.
Tao and Taoism may be related.
Some seek the one, some the other.
>better yet, facing yourself squarely, i.e. honestly.
sometimes Ichin and I agree.
>do you walk the walk?
some say that the sage does not contend,
does not argue, does not do lots of stuff.
>or just talk the talk?
some think of themselves as having integrity
while little children starve, or go thirsty.
some identify themselves with everything.
some are interested in an easier way
of mind\body unism, as an example.
> :)
>IS
MDHJWH
> > -IS expressed his energy thus,
> > > An ex-Jewish,
> > > he actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
There is nothing to grasp.
Ayn Marx
zisixi
> >zisixi wrote:
> >> -IS expressed his energy thus,
>
> >>he
> >> actually thinks that he has a grasp of Chinese Taoism.
>
> some self-appointed enlightened masters
> may actually think they know what others think.
>
> >This saddens me.
> >
> >I was hoping
> >to grasp
> >Chinese Taoism
>
> have you ever known a happy animal
> other than a human being?
I suppose I have.
Prior to allergies,
I'd spend hours
in the company
of some furry creature
purring or wagging.
> >Since
> >my knowledge of
> >Jiantizi is rusty
>
> some see meaning in chirps of birds.
or hear
> >and
> >my knowledge of
> >fantizi are dusty
>
> sum sea nonsensycles
> riding rounds on flat tracks tracking
felt that way before,
will probably will again
say, maybe
I'm on that track,
riding around
> >I read mostly
> >translations
>
> who can say,
> with a little knowledge
> of the English language,
> if an interpretation is correct
> oar if nuances are too subtle
:)
> >I must also confess
> >
> >I've not yet
> >finished college
>
> I finished twice.
> Some never finish learning.
> Some say unlearning is a dao
I've got a lot to learn about unlearning
> >and I will admit
> >the religion
> >of my childhood
> >might no longer
> >want me
>
> some religions can be that way.
> each dao is a dao.
(sigh) yeah
> >I'm sure
> >that to some
> >my approach to Daoism
> >may seem
> >quite foolish
>
> do you laugh much?
more than many
but not enough
what's been
laughworthy for you lately?
> >that I might not
> >grasp Chinese Taoism
> >because of these,
> >
> >This saddens me
> >
> >I was hoping
> >to grasp
> >Chinese Taoism
>
> perhaps you can use a teacher.
> are you searching for One?
I think
I could always
use another teacher
Does anyone
have just one teacher?
zisixi
> >zisixi pointed in
>
> >I'm really
> >wondering if some actually have these criteria in mind when they say,
> >"Taoist".
>
> Lots of confusion may result from words.
> An interpretation of "names" and "naming"
> may be pointed at in TTC 1.2, ming ke ming
> fei chang ming. Does that sound like a chant?
> [-survey results being tabulated.]
>
> >If so, I guess I'll go back to describing myself as one who
> >believes in chaos.
>
> Such a term is also knot width out confus'ions.
at least I know what I mean when I use it
;-)
With "Taoism", I'm not so certain.
Maybe there's something to learn in that.
> H'ears a link-t'hat may be of interestinging.
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/perp.html
it is of
seems there are 10k ways of interpretting the term
thanks
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >zisixi quoted ichin writing and also wrote:
>
> >> -IS expressed his energy thus,
> >> > An ex-Jewish,
> >
> >"Ex-": after he abandoned his Jewish tradition in favor of Chinese
> >Taoism,
>
> some think they know what others have done
> and espouse what they think others are
> in favor of, oar knots. they talk lots of talk.
Yup, we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
>
> >> college dropout [and probably failed anything he tried],
> >
> >cannot learn,
>
> some enjoy leaping to conclusions
some enjoy trivializing,
> and make blanket statements about others.
and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
> thinking they know another's capability,
> they may be deluded, or simply trolling.
maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
> talking lots of talk, they contend this\that.
while the catfish wriggles.
>
> >and cannot follow,
>
> some may wish to teach
> and consider themselves masters.
> they may wish that others would follow.
>
> having no license to teach,
No license needed to teach, the question is do you have enough
knowledge to cover what you teach.
> no credibility
> as it were,
A bozo talks about credibility? that's novelty.
> they may play a round on usenet,
> set up a website, proclaim that they are
> enlightened, and pass judgement.
Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
>
> >and ended up being a verbiage.
>
> they may, for example,
> think of themselves as a Xian-Sheng (sensei),
As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
first is called Xian-Sheng.
>
> >It remains me the story that CT told,
> >
> >A boy from Yan who went to a foreign state
>
> perhaps the United States
>
> >to learn their fancy steps,
> >which he cannot learn, while lost his own steps, he found no way to
> >walk but to crawl home.--CT 17--
>
> along they way they might have
> "found the way of gravity, thus enlightened in Tao,"
Yup, "Tai Chi Skiing: the dance of the cosmos"--KungFu QiGong
magazine, May/June, 2003--
> they may think all sorts of thoughts
and do as well,
http://www.taomartialarts.com/ski/is_tcs_heavenly.avi
>
> >Lost his dignity and bankrupted his original character all for the
> >vanity of being different, that's sad.
>
> some are simply who they are,
> be it clown, student, dropout, etc..
Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
> some think that others are who they say.
> such thinking leads rounds and a round.
Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
yourself out of it. Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
>
> >why not just to invent a seven-foot hill to claim that he is on top?
>
> perhaps such as
> 'in Alaska "back" mountains '
Yup, not sure your bare feet would survive though.
>
> >the seven minutes frost would be tasted as good even if it's
> >imaginary?
>
> such is how life can be.
Can be better.
>
> >Just talk about won't help either.
>
> some enjoy talking.
Obviously.
> they may spend countless hours
Maybe,
> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
when they're behind the techno curve.
> some may have better things to do
> but remain here none-the-less.
> funny, t'hats.
Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
>
> >useful knowledge usually comes with hard-earned experience of an
> >action well done.
>
> some dismiss the actions of others.
Some dismiss themselves.
>
> >> I read mostly
> >> translations
> >
> >better not to read them.
>
> learning another language
> may not meet the standards of some.
> passing judgement, interpretations vary.
"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
>
> >college graduate is not a requirement in pursuing Tao, nevertheless,
> >it reflects one's knowledge base and stamina in pursuing.
>
> Tao and Taoism may be related.
> Some seek the one, some the other.
Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
>
> >better yet, facing yourself squarely, i.e. honestly.
>
> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
>
> >do you walk the walk?
>
> some say that the sage does not contend,
> does not argue,
They don't argue, but they do clarify,
> does not do lots of stuff.
and do what they say.
>
> >or just talk the talk?
>
> some think of themselves as having integrity
> while little children starve, or go thirsty.
Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
little children starve...
>
> some identify themselves with everything.
Everything is everything?
> some are interested in an easier way
> of mind\body unism,
some just find an easy way out by talking,
> as an example.
if you can see.
:)
IS
>
> > :)
> IS
Jaybuzin0000
> jay say
>> who can say,
>> with a little knowledge
>> of the English language,
>> if an interpretation is correct
>> oar if nuances are too subtle
>
> :)
words may have sew m'any meanings
>> >that to some
>> >my approach to Daoism
>> >may seem
>> >quite foolish
>>
>> do you laugh much?
>
>more than many
>but not enough
>
>what's been
>laughworthy for you lately?
Thinking about how stupid I am
can make me crack up endlessly.
Acting crazy is a dao of much fun fur me.
At work, at times, we call out names of towns.
I enjoy being an echo. When my associate
calls out a name, I echo him. This makes me laugh
when thinking about it
stupid stuff is lots of laughs
your smile evoked a meaning of an oar
which was verbal, as a verb reverbing.
usually I use or\oar\ore as dysjunctive.
most always the thought of a single oar
gives rise to an image of a small boat
rowing a round in circles due to a failure
to change from right to left over.
this image makes me smile.
it's been said that fools laugh
when they hear of Dao.
playing a fool or being played as a fool
is a laugh-worthy unworthiness berry n'ears
to teh utility of uselessness.
>Does anyone
>have just one teacher?
from a pov of One,
there is only a singular body, asit were.
_the_ teacher, as also width *the* sage,
may appear and disappear
at times beyond time.
from a pov of 10k things,
m'ore than one may appear at length,
each having depth,
-of characters, etcetera.
Jaybuzin0000
>jay had written:
>we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
I'm not sure who your "we" is
but I've been a bozo from day One.
>some enjoy trivializing,
obviously.
>and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
your motives are clear.
>maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
sew it seams.
>while the catfish wriggles.
as is its nature.
>No license needed to teach,
true.
>the question is do you have enough
>knowledge to cover what you teach.
lots of quest'ions exist.
sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
>A bozo talks about credibility?
a bozo is free to talk about anything.
>that's novelty.
true.
>Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
>As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
>self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
>first is called Xian-Sheng.
Some so-called true masters
are given their title from a respected lineage.
Others ordain themselves and call themselves
most anything they choose. In some respects
being certain ways is respectful.
>Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
some professions are respectful.
some have no use for another's ways.
>Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
>yourself out of it.
don't be sad my friend.
it's okay tho when
some think they catch a fish
and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
and yet it makes them sad.
>Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
perhaps you enjoy being sad.
maybe all is not lost for you.
>> such is how life can be.
>
>Can be better.
some enjoy better and better.
being sad, they may turn to being glad.
>> >Just talk about won't help either.
>>
>> some enjoy talking.
>
>Obviously.
obviously.
>> they may spend countless hours
>
>Maybe,
>
>> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
>
>when they're behind the techno curve.
how many hours have you spent so far
in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
can you count them all?
>> some may have better things to do
>> but remain here none-the-less.
>> funny, t'hats.
>
>Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
probably. hopefully.
but it may make them sad.
>> some dismiss the actions of others.
>
>Some dismiss themselves.
they may rest.
they may return.
>"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
better is a tao.
>Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
some go for a rest and return today.
>> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
>
>Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
sometimes we agree to disagree.
in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
>> some say that the sage does not contend,
>> does not argue,
>
>They don't argue, but they do clarify,
some think they are fancy with words.
>and do what they say.
>Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
>little children starve...
now that you mention it.
>> some identify themselves with everything.
>
>Everything is everything?
Is that a question?
>> some are interested in an easier way
>> of mind\body unism,
>
>some just find an easy way out by talking,
when Zz's wife died
>> as an example.
>
>if you can see.
being sad,
being glad,
being a bozo,
being an enlightened master
> :)
>IS
yunlong
> ichin at last, finished his rest:
> >jay had written:
>
> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
>
> I'm not sure who your "we" is
> but I've been a bozo from day One.
Not sure you even know that, before some colors are provided for your
clown suit.
>
> >some enjoy trivializing,
>
> obviously.
>
> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
>
> your motives are clear.
>
> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
>
> sew it seams.
>
> >while the catfish wriggles.
>
> as is its nature.
Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
>
> >No license needed to teach,
>
> true.
>
> >the question is do you have enough
> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
>
> lots of quest'ions exist.
> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
>
> >A bozo talks about credibility?
>
> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
>
> >that's novelty.
>
> true.
>
> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
>
> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
throw at it, then I won't.
>
> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
>
> Some so-called true masters
> are given their title from a respected lineage.
Then, there's scandal.
> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
> most anything they choose.
A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
> In some respects
> being certain ways is respectful.
Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
>
> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
>
> some professions are respectful.
> some have no use for another's ways.
Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
>
> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
> >yourself out of it.
>
> don't be sad my friend.
Not for me, thanks,
>
> it's okay tho when
> some think they catch a fish
> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
Some [human] think they are catfish, and stress their ability in
wiggles.
> and yet it makes them sad.
It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
>
> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
>
> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
> maybe all is not lost for you.
It never did, Tao is all encompass.
>
> >> such is how life can be.
> >
> >Can be better.
>
> some enjoy better and better.
> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
Some enjoy being humiliated, thinking that they struggle against some
authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
>
> >> >Just talk about won't help either.
> >>
> >> some enjoy talking.
> >
> >Obviously.
>
> obviously.
>
> >> they may spend countless hours
> >
> >Maybe,
> >
> >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
> >
> >when they're behind the techno curve.
>
> how many hours have you spent so far
> in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
different activities; nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
the most posts, try to catch up?
> can you count them all?
and you even count them?
>
> >> some may have better things to do
> >> but remain here none-the-less.
> >> funny, t'hats.
> >
> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
>
> probably. hopefully.
> but it may make them sad.
Only human.
>
> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
> >
> >Some dismiss themselves.
>
> they may rest.
> they may return.
Or denying their own existence.
>
> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
>
> better is a tao.
Trivial.
>
> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
>
> some go for a rest and return today.
Daily living.
>
> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
> >
> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
>
> sometimes we agree to disagree.
> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
It depends on how you agree or disagree.
Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
>
> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
> >> does not argue,
> >
> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
>
> some think they are fancy with words.
Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
>
> >and do what they say.
>
> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
> >little children starve...
>
> now that you mention it.
For your short memory.
>
> >> some identify themselves with everything.
> >
> >Everything is everything?
>
> Is that a question?
How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
>
> >> some are interested in an easier way
> >> of mind\body unism,
> >
> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
>
> when Zz's wife died
Huh?
>
> >> as an example.
> >
> >if you can see.
>
> being sad,
> being glad,
> being a bozo,
> being an enlightened master
To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
:)
IS
>
> > :)
> >IS
small tortoiseshell
> David requested:
>
> >a definition
>
> philosophy is the love of wisdom.
>
> the philosophy of philosophy is to seek out
> and boldly go where no-mind has gone before.
non-differentiating entitys aware of separatdness are rare to come across...
> discovering new worlds and kicking up lots of dust,
> at times full of much sound
> and furry.
every shadow runs away,
Jaybuzin0000
>jb had written:
th'is is sew mulch fun
eye likes two-repeat, revisit, and return.
twas asked what the definition of is, is.
>> is wrote:
>> >zi quoted is writing and also wrote:
>>
>> >> -IS expressed his energy thus,
>> >> > An ex-Jewish,
>> >
>> >"Ex-": after he abandoned his Jewish tradition in favor of Chinese
>> >Taoism,
This is most curious, to me,
how Ichin fixes his gaze on a thing.
After giving this some thought, it dawns on me
how growing up I never went to an organized institution
and our family celebrated as we pleased. It is rather a
strange assertion to suppose that one could abandon
what never was to begin with. Ichin appears, to me,
to project quite a bit lots of times. It still appears, to me,
that it has more to do with his own psyche than with mine.
The traditions I keep are quite off-topic here.
Unknown too most, they remain a mystery.
>> some enjoy leaping to conclusions
>
>some enjoy trivializing,
What people say is still a curiosity to me.
Why they say what they say is interesting, to me.
>> and make blanket statements about others.
>
>and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
Perhaps Ichin confuses himself
or thinks that I confuse myself and that I try
to confuse others. Such is his projection and situation.
>> thinking they know another's capability,
>> they may be deluded, or simply trolling.
>
>maybe,
maybe. probably. certainly.
>nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
Some say that Krishna, ore this\that, plays all parts.
Some identify with the Universe. Others dew knot.
>the question is do you have enough
>knowledge to cover what you teach.
The fact that I don't teach is a fact.
Teh use of language can be an act'ion.
Some think of themselves as teachers.
Some think of themselves as clowns.
Some are assholes. Which part of the body
people can relate to or deny is curious.
>> no credibility
>> as it were,
>
>A bozo talks about credibility? that's novelty.
Some may say a Tim, or a Marvin, is incredible.
Some see delusion in others. Funny, t'hats.
>> they may, for example,
>> think of themselves as a Xian-Sheng (sensei),
>
>As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
>self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
>first is called Xian-Sheng.
I can only wonder about the "whoever attains it first" p'art.
Tim, Marvin, et al believed they were self-enlightened.
Perhaps they were the first. They thought they attained.
Apparently Ichin does too. Some may think the alt.groups
are about enlightenment, or Unism, ore w'hat-Ever.
>> along they way they might have
>> "found the way of gravity, thus enlightened in Tao,"
>
>Yup, "Tai Chi Skiing: the dance of the cosmos"--KungFu QiGong
>magazine, May/June, 2003--
>
>> they may think all sorts of thoughts
>
>and do as well,
>
>http://www.taomartialarts.com/ski/is_tcs_heavenly.avi
Some say Taoism is this. Some say that.
>> some are simply who they are,
>> be it clown, student, dropout, etc..
>
>Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
Realizing Teh may be a way.
Dao ke dao may sound as a ch'ant.
Fei chang dao may be scene as a God
to those who project th'air delusions.
>> some think that others are who they say.
>> such thinking leads rounds and a round.
>
>Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
>yourself out of it.
This statement is a curious projection\assertion, to me.
Perhaps Ichin thinks I'm trying not to be a bozo,
or that I am trying to be a bozo, or that I'm trying to
talk myself out of something. Ichin is a fun guy.
Sometimes I feel almost normal.
>Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
It appears as tho Ichin thinks\feels that I've made a mistake.
Perhaps he will enlighten me et al what that mistake is.
Make no mistake, I've made lots of mistakes.
Exactly what mistake to which Ichin refers
is completely beyond me. Fifty years? hmmm.
>Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
It occurs to me that an Abbot can use a Costello;
a Martin, Lewis; a Burns, Allen; a Shen, Buzin.
Some enjoy the Three Stooges, Beverly Hillbillies, etc..
How such shows are made could be a form of Taoism.
Ways in which this\that go hand in hand are fun, for me.
It has a little to do with mind/body unity
and has much more to do with language.
Such may be a dao of daoism.
>> >> I read mostly
>> >> translations
>> >
>> >better not to read them.
>>
>> learning another language
>> may not meet the standards of some.
>> passing judgement, interpretations vary.
>
>"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
It's been said that all translations are interpretations.
To not read them suggests either not reading anything
or, perhaps, reading in a more original form, i.e. language.
Ichin, if he was to be consistent, may be suggesting
that it would be better not to read his translations.
Funny, t'hats. Perhaps there are other levels
of meaning of meaning of meaning.
But the point I was making seams two-elude him.
Prehaps a conscious is unconscious of things
at times within time.
>> Tao and Taoism may be related.
>> Some seek the one, some the other.
>
>Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
Perhaps such is why Ichin is here.
To return, to regain, to again attain,
may be a way, prehaps chang dao.
>Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
somebody being a bozo
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>> ichin at last, finished his rest:
>> >jay had written:
>>
>> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
>>
>> I'm not sure who your "we" is
>> but I've been a bozo from day One.
>
>Not sure you even know that,
of course you aren't sure.
>before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
you do what you must do
to prove to yourself what you must prove.
>> >some enjoy trivializing,
>>
>> obviously.
>>
>> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
>>
>> your motives are clear.
>>
>> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
>>
>> sew it seams.
>>
>> >while the catfish wriggles.
>>
>> as is its nature.
>
>Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
Some may think Taoism is about ability.
Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
An ability to think is most fun.
>> >No license needed to teach,
>>
>> true.
>>
>> >the question is do you have enough
>> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
>>
>> lots of quest'ions exist.
>> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
>
>Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
>> >A bozo talks about credibility?
As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
>> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
>
>Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
People define words as they choose.
A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
>> >that's novelty.
>>
>> true.
>>
>> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
>>
>> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
>
>It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
>throw at it, then I won't.
Some rest, then they return.
Some like to throw shit around
until their shit is worthless.
>> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
>> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
>> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
>>
>> Some so-called true masters
>> are given their title from a respected lineage.
>
>Then, there's scandal.
You have been involved in a scandal?
Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
>> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
>> most anything they choose.
>
>A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
I don't recall thinking that.
Did Chuang Chou consider himself
to be an enlightened master? Where does it say such a thing?
Why do you say such strange things?
>> In some respects
>> being certain ways is respectful.
>
>Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
Respect may reflect self-respect.
>> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
>>
>> some professions are respectful.
>> some have no use for another's ways.
>
>Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
>> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
>> >yourself out of it.
>>
>> don't be sad my friend.
>
>Not for me, thanks,
Nobody said you should be a bozo.
You simply are what you are.
>> it's okay tho when
>> some think they catch a fish
>> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
>
>Some [human] think they are catfish,
>and stress their ability in wiggles.
As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
>> and yet it makes them sad.
>
>It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
You pity clowns?
>> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
>>
>> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
>> maybe all is not lost for you.
>
>It never did, Tao is all encompass.
Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
Others clown a round in a grove.
>> >> such is how life can be.
>> >
>> >Can be better.
>>
>> some enjoy better and better.
>> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
>
>Some enjoy being humiliated,
some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
>thinking that they struggle against some
>authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
Uh, hmmm.
Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
Are you struggling against some authority figure?
And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
Do you feel mutated?
-tia.
>> >> >Just talk about won't help either.
>> >>
>> >> some enjoy talking.
>> >
>> >Obviously.
>>
>> obviously.
>>
>> >> they may spend countless hours
>> >
>> >Maybe,
>> >
>> >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
>> >
>> >when they're behind the techno curve.
>>
>> how many hours have you spent so far
>> in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
>
>What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
>different activities;
I've done both, and do know.
Your presumption that I don't know
is simply your presumption.
> nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
>the most posts, try to catch up?
catch up to what?
>> can you count them all?
>
>and you even count them?
why bother?
why do you spend countless hours here?
>> >> some may have better things to do
>> >> but remain here none-the-less.
>> >> funny, t'hats.
>> >
>> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
>>
>> probably. hopefully.
>> but it may make them sad.
>
>Only human.
such is life.
>> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
>> >
>> >Some dismiss themselves.
>>
>> they may rest.
>> they may return.
>
>Or denying their own existence.
You deny your own existence?
Some identify with everything.
Some identify with nothing.
A way of affirmation exists.
A way of negation exists.
Many ways exist.
Dao ke dao.
Does that sound like a chant to you?
>> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
>>
>> better is a tao.
>
>Trivial.
your words my friend.
>> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
>>
>> some go for a rest and return today.
>
>Daily living.
n'ice two-play a round, width wu
>> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
>> >
>> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
>>
>> sometimes we agree to disagree.
>> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
>
>It depends on how you agree or disagree.
>Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
You are heading into Teh-red?
>> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
>> >> does not argue,
>> >
>> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
>>
>> some think they are fancy with words.
>
>Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
sum th'inks eye is clever.
such is th'air project'ion.
>> >and do what they say.
>>
>> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
>> >little children starve...
>>
>> now that you mention it.
>
>For your short memory.
you still do nothing?
and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
>> >> some identify themselves with everything.
>> >
>> >Everything is everything?
>>
>> Is that a question?
>
>How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
It may go over your head.
You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
You may think it's a misinterpretation
of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
>> >> some are interested in an easier way
>> >> of mind\body unism,
>> >
>> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
>>
>> when Zz's wife died
>
>Huh?
I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
When the CT speaks of mourning,
as it does on more than one occasion,
what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
>> >> as an example.
>> >
>> >if you can see.
>>
>> being sad,
>> being glad,
>> being a bozo,
>> being an enlightened master
>
>To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
your projections are endless.
thoughts interest your no-mind.
>:)
>IS
>
>>
>> > :)
>> >IS
Jaybuzin0000
>jay'd referred to:
>>ichin appeared to have a quest'ion:
>> >Everything is everything?
>>
>> Is that a question?
>
>How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
<begin quote from a site>
The universe is the unity of all things.
If one recognizes his identity
with this unity, then
the parts of his body mean
no more to him than so much dirt,
and death and life,
end and beginning,
disturb his tranquillity
no more than the succession
of day and night.
The mind of the perfect man
is like a mirror.
It does not lean
forward or backward
in response to things.
It responds to things but
conceals nothing of its own.
<end quote>
>How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
dao ke dao
fei chang dao
>How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
<here's another quote from a "CT site">
There is the great Mass (of nature);-- I find the support of my body on it; my
life is spent in toil on it; my old age seeks ease on it; at death I find rest
in it;-- what makes my life a good makes my death also a good. If you hide away
a boat in the ravine of a hill, and hide away the hill in a lake, you will say
that (the boat) is secure; but at midnight there shall come a strong man and
carry it off on his back, while you in the dark know nothing about it. You may
hide away anything, whether small or great, in the most suitable place, and yet
it shall disappear from it. But if you could hide the world in the world, so
that there was nowhere to which it could be removed, this would be the grand
reality of the ever-during Thing. When the body of man comes from its special
mould, there is even then occasion for joy; but this body undergoes a myriad
transformations, and does not immediately reach its perfection;-- does it not
thus afford occasion for joys incalculable? Therefore the sagely man enjoys
himself in that from which there is no possibility of separation, and by which
all things are preserved. He considers early death or old age, his beginning
and his ending, all to be good, and in this other men imitate him;-- how much
more will they do so in regard to That Itself on which all things depend, and
from which every transformation arises!
<end quote>
>How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
tall deependings
may go over
One's head
oar knots
zisixi
I just finished re-reading (this time as a book-on-tape)
the Odyssey.
I'm reminded of Odysseus' final quest,
to cary a single oar across the land
until he came to a land
where someone would say
it was a winnowing fan
not an oar
Not sure what it has to do with Dao,
just reminded.
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> ichin at last, finished his rest:
> >> >jay had written:
>
> >> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure who your "we" is
> >> but I've been a bozo from day One.
> >
> >Not sure you even know that,
>
> of course you aren't sure.
>
> >before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
>
> you do what you must do
> to prove to yourself what you must prove.
That's what I am sure of, and done it.
>
> >> >some enjoy trivializing,
> >>
> >> obviously.
> >>
> >> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
> >>
> >> your motives are clear.
> >>
> >> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
> >>
> >> sew it seams.
> >>
> >> >while the catfish wriggles.
> >>
> >> as is its nature.
> >
> >Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
>
> Some may think Taoism is about ability.
> Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
> An ability to think is most fun.
Not if the thinking turns into chanting.
>
> >> >No license needed to teach,
> >>
> >> true.
> >>
> >> >the question is do you have enough
> >> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
> >>
> >> lots of quest'ions exist.
> >> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
> >
> >Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
>
> Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
Flickering is in your mind.
>
> >> >A bozo talks about credibility?
>
> As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
Not necessarily, as true enlightenment encompasses all as well.
>
> >> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
> >
> >Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
>
> People define words as they choose.
In general, people use words by convention, unless you care to define
the words you use.
> A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
> Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
> Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
"Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo."
>
> >> >that's novelty.
> >>
> >> true.
> >>
> >> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
> >>
> >> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
> >
> >It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
> >throw at it, then I won't.
>
> Some rest, then they return.
> Some like to throw shit around
> until their shit is worthless.
Yes, as their characters bankrupted, there's no redemption.
>
> >> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
> >> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
> >> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
> >>
> >> Some so-called true masters
> >> are given their title from a respected lineage.
> >
> >Then, there's scandal.
>
> You have been involved in a scandal?
> Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
Your insinuation is amazing,
> Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
No, the transmission to six patriarch Hui-Neng is an obvious example.
>
> >> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
> >> most anything they choose.
> >
> >A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
>
> I don't recall thinking that.
> Did Chuang Chou consider himself
> to be an enlightened master?
Too much work to explain to you what CT really said, really,
> Where does it say such a thing?
what do you think "true man" is?
> Why do you say such strange things?
Not a strange thing in Chinese, it's you know too little.
>
> >> In some respects
> >> being certain ways is respectful.
> >
> >Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
>
> Respect may reflect self-respect.
And irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect.
>
> >> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
> >>
> >> some professions are respectful.
> >> some have no use for another's ways.
> >
> >Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
>
> Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
No, but a clown bozo character is [in low esteem].
>
> >> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
> >> >yourself out of it.
> >>
> >> don't be sad my friend.
> >
> >Not for me, thanks,
>
> Nobody said you should be a bozo.
> You simply are what you are.
You "simply" don't know what "are" is.
>
> >> it's okay tho when
> >> some think they catch a fish
> >> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
> >
> >Some [human] think they are catfish,
> >and stress their ability in wiggles.
>
> As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
> aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
> and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
> that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
Ok, "a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows" it is.
>
> >> and yet it makes them sad.
> >
> >It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
>
> You pity clowns?
Not that I care.
>
> >> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
> >>
> >> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
> >> maybe all is not lost for you.
> >
> >It never did, Tao is all encompass.
>
> Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
> Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
> Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
> Others clown a round in a grove.
There's Tao, there's tao, and there's... uhh.. whatever,
>
> >> >> such is how life can be.
> >> >
> >> >Can be better.
> >>
> >> some enjoy better and better.
> >> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
> >
> >Some enjoy being humiliated,
>
> some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
>
> >thinking that they struggle against some
> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
>
> Uh, hmmm.
> Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
> I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
That's your own projection, though I may shine you the way a bit,
> Are you struggling against some authority figure?
I'm not even struggling, what makes you think that there's authority I
need to struggle with?
> And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
No, only happy I am.
> Do you feel mutated?
No.
> -tia.
Don't mention it.
>
> >> >> >Just talk about won't help either.
> >> >>
> >> >> some enjoy talking.
> >> >
> >> >Obviously.
> >>
> >> obviously.
> >>
> >> >> they may spend countless hours
> >> >
> >> >Maybe,
> >> >
> >> >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
> >> >
> >> >when they're behind the techno curve.
> >>
> >> how many hours have you spent so far
> >> in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
> >
> >What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
> >different activities;
>
> I've done both, and do know.
> Your presumption that I don't know
> is simply your presumption.
It was your statement, not my care a bit.
>
> > nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
> >the most posts, try to catch up?
>
> catch up to what?
Your half-baked Taoism.
>
> >> can you count them all?
> >
> >and you even count them?
>
> why bother?
> why do you spend countless hours here?
Interesting question, but you don't see yourself spend countless hours
here?
>
> >> >> some may have better things to do
> >> >> but remain here none-the-less.
> >> >> funny, t'hats.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
> >>
> >> probably. hopefully.
> >> but it may make them sad.
> >
> >Only human.
>
> such is life.
Some life is good, and some life just pathetic.
>
> >> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
> >> >
> >> >Some dismiss themselves.
> >>
> >> they may rest.
> >> they may return.
> >
> >Or denying their own existence.
>
> You deny your own existence?
Don't tell me you're going to dismiss yourself again!
> Some identify with everything.
> Some identify with nothing.
> A way of affirmation exists.
> A way of negation exists.
> Many ways exist.
Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao.
> Dao ke dao.
> Does that sound like a chant to you?
Yes.
>
> >> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
> >>
> >> better is a tao.
> >
> >Trivial.
>
> your words my friend.
Overlook your words again?
>
> >> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
> >>
> >> some go for a rest and return today.
> >
> >Daily living.
>
> n'ice two-play a round, width wu
>
> >> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
> >> >
> >> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
> >>
> >> sometimes we agree to disagree.
> >> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
> >
> >It depends on how you agree or disagree.
> >Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
>
> You are heading into Teh-red?
Question?
>
> >> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
> >> >> does not argue,
> >> >
> >> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
> >>
> >> some think they are fancy with words.
> >
> >Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
>
> sum th'inks eye is clever.
> such is th'air project'ion.
So you don't think your are fancy with words?
>
> >> >and do what they say.
>
> >> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
> >> >little children starve...
> >>
> >> now that you mention it.
> >
> >For your short memory.
>
> you still do nothing?
> and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
I have done my share to point it out, it was an unnecessary concern
and what a hypocritical neo-confucian idea it was, and as you brought
up the subject, what did you do about it?
>
> >> >> some identify themselves with everything.
> >> >
> >> >Everything is everything?
> >>
> >> Is that a question?
> >
> >How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
>
> I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
> It may go over your head.
> You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
> You may think it's a misinterpretation
> of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
I can see how you'll cut&paste, however, first thing first, "what" is
"everything," and how do you account for them?
>
> >> >> some are interested in an easier way
> >> >> of mind\body unism,
> >> >
> >> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
> >>
> >> when Zz's wife died
> >
> >Huh?
>
> I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
> When the CT speaks of mourning,
> as it does on more than one occasion,
> what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
I thought you knew about "true man."
> Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
Maybe.
>
> >> >> as an example.
> >> >
> >> >if you can see.
> >>
> >> being sad,
> >> being glad,
> >> being a bozo,
> >> being an enlightened master
> >
> >To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
>
> your projections are endless.
> thoughts interest your no-mind.
What else a bozo would think when he runs around all over the grove
and tells everybody that their idea of Tao is not Tao because he knows
"dao ke dao..."?
:)
IS
>
> >:)
> >IS
> >
> >>
> >> > :)
> >> >IS
Jaybuzin0000
>I'm reminded of Odysseus' final quest,
>to cary a single oar across the land
>until he came to a land
>where someone would say
>it was a winnowing fan
>not an oar
>
>Not sure what it has to do with Dao,
>just reminded.
In sum philosophers-gemstone of Daoism
it is perspectivally relativistic. When Hui Shih
complained one time to Chuang Tzu about
having a super large sized gourd, Zz chided him
about being unimaginative.
From The Chuang Tzu
Free and Easy Wandering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "The king of Wei gave me some seeds of a huge
gourd. I planted them, and when they grew up, the fruit was big enough to hold
five piculs. I tried using it for a water container, but it was so heavy I
couldn't lift it. I split it in half to make dippers, but they were so large
and unwieldy that I couldn't dip them into anything. It's not that the gourds
weren't fantastically big-but I decided they were no use and so I smashed them
to pieces."
Chuang Tzu said, "You certainly are dense when it comes to using big things! In
Sung there was a man who was skilled at making a salve to prevent chapped
hands, and generation after generation his family made a living by bleaching
silk in water, A traveler heard about the salve and offered to buy the
prescription for a hundred measures of gold. The man called everyone to a
family council. 'For generations we've been bleaching silk and we've never made
more than a few measures of gold,' he said. 'Now if we sell our secret, we can
make a hundred measures in one morning. Let's let him have it!"
The traveler got the salve and introduced it to the king of Wu, who was having
trouble with the state of Yueh. The kind put the man in charge of his troops,
and that Winter they fought a naval battle with the men of Yueh and gave them a
bad beating.* A portion of the conquered territory was awarded to the man as a
fief. The salve had the power to prevent chapped hands in either case; but one
man used it to get a fief, while the other one never got beyond silk
bleaching-because they used it in different ways. Now you had a gourd big
enough to hold five piculs. Why didn't you think of making it into a great tub
so you could go floating around the rivers and lakes, instead of worrying
because it was too big and unwieldy to dip into things! Obviously you still
have a lot of underbrush in your head!"
http://www.publicappeal.org/library/unicorn/chuang-tzu/
Flipping of perspectives
may be a Dao of Daoism.
-imbo
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>> ichin wrote:
>> >jay wrote:
>> >> ichin at last, finished his rest:
>> >> >jay had written:
>>
>> >> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure who your "we" is
>> >> but I've been a bozo from day One.
>> >
>> >Not sure you even know that,
>>
>> of course you aren't sure.
>>
>> >before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
>>
>> you do what you must do
>> to prove to yourself what you must prove.
>
>That's what I am sure of, and done it.
and now you are throwing shit
and will do so until it is worthless?
>> >> >some enjoy trivializing,
>> >>
>> >> obviously.
>> >>
>> >> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
>> >>
>> >> your motives are clear.
>> >>
>> >> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
>> >>
>> >> sew it seams.
>> >>
>> >> >while the catfish wriggles.
>> >>
>> >> as is its nature.
>> >
>> >Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
>>
>> Some may think Taoism is about ability.
>> Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
>> An ability to think is most fun.
>
>Not if the thinking turns into chanting.
Some hear chanting in the written words of others.
Some think that when birds chirp it means something.
People can mean lots of things when they speak
ming ke ming fei chang ming.
When Chuang Tzu spoke of a bird chirp
some may think he meant something, ore another.
>> >> >No license needed to teach,
>> >>
>> >> true.
>> >>
>> >> >the question is do you have enough
>> >> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
>> >>
>> >> lots of quest'ions exist.
>> >> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
>> >
>> >Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
>>
>> Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
>
>Flickering is in your mind.
sea quest ion be low
>> >> >A bozo talks about credibility?
>>
>> As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
>
>Not necessarily, as true enlightenment encompasses all as well.
thus, "Yes, when One is enlighted, all questions disappeared"
and, "Not necessarily, as true enlightenment ... "
plus, "A bozo talks about credibility?"
equals, tossing shit until it is worthless.
>> >> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
>> >
>> >Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
>>
>> People define words as they choose.
>
>In general, people use words by convention, unless you care to define
>the words you use.
Some have need of definitions.
Some are confused and ask for directions.
Some toss shit until it is worthless.
Then they rest. Then they return.
They repeat as kneaded.
>> A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
>> Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
>> Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
>
>"Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo."
You differentiate between clown and bozo?
Some define terms in advance. Some in retreat.
Some nEver dew. Such is teh case.
>> >> >that's novelty.
>> >>
>> >> true.
>> >>
>> >> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
>> >>
>> >> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
>> >
>> >It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
>> >throw at it, then I won't.
>>
>> Some rest, then they return.
>> Some like to throw shit around
>> until their shit is worthless.
>
>Yes, as their characters bankrupted, there's no redemption.
" when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
throw at it, then I won't."
When your shit is worthless, have you redeemed much?
>> >> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
>> >> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
>> >> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
>> >>
>> >> Some so-called true masters
>> >> are given their title from a respected lineage.
>> >
>> >Then, there's scandal.
>>
>> You have been involved in a scandal?
>> Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
>
>Your insinuation is amazing,
In other words, you never studied with any reputable teachers.
You read a few books. Became "enlightened" after having
found gravity. And now you toss shit until it is worthless.
You actions speak very highly of your self-respect.
>> Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
>
>No, the transmission to six patriarch Hui-Neng is an obvious example.
Who authorized Hui-Neng? Whom did Hui-Neng authorize?
A transmission is a formal rite of passage. Being informal
can be a dao also. Dao ke dao. Does that sound like a chant?
>> >> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
>> >> most anything they choose.
>> >
>> >A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
>>
>> I don't recall thinking that.
>> Did Chuang Chou consider himself
>> to be an enlightened master?
>
>Too much work to explain to you what CT really said, really,
Ah. So you are lazy at Taoism
but have energy for tossing worthless shit.
Perhaps Taoism would refresh you
and your shit wouldn't be as worthless.
>> Where does it say such a thing?
>
>what do you think "true man" is?
Check google for copies and pastes.
Read the Chuang-tzu and translate it into English.
>> Why do you say such strange things?
>
>Not a strange thing in Chinese, it's you know too little.
Some see things in the words of others
but what they see is not what others see.
Dao ke dao, ming ke ming.
>> >> In some respects
>> >> being certain ways is respectful.
>> >
>> >Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
>>
>> Respect may reflect self-respect.
>
>And irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect.
Thus your lack.
>> >> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
>> >>
>> >> some professions are respectful.
>> >> some have no use for another's ways.
>> >
>> >Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
>>
>> Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
>
>No, but a clown bozo character is [in low esteem].
Ah. So in your eyes there are levels of clowns
within the profession. Some are deemed higher
and some are lower, in your eyes. This is interesting.
>> >> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
>> >> >yourself out of it.
>> >>
>> >> don't be sad my friend.
>> >
>> >Not for me, thanks,
>>
>> Nobody said you should be a bozo.
>> You simply are what you are.
>
>You "simply" don't know what "are" is.
It doesn't make any difference.
You simply are what you are.
>> >> it's okay tho when
>> >> some think they catch a fish
>> >> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
>> >
>> >Some [human] think they are catfish,
>> >and stress their ability in wiggles.
>>
>> As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
>> aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
>> and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
>> that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
>
>Ok, "a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows" it is.
c.a.t.f.i.s.h.
It's an acronym.
Perhaps, in your eyes, this is even lower than a bozo.
Maybe you can think of the lowest possible thing
and I may say I am that too. Being a rainbow at heart,
there is no colour I am not.
Some will deny aspects of themselves
and contend that such a this\that is not in them.
Others will see how degrees exist, and how all parts
of the body/mind are one, complete, undifferentiable.
>> >> and yet it makes them sad.
>> >
>> >It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
>>
>> You pity clowns?
>
>Not that I care.
But you hold bozo, the clown, in low esteem
and it makes you sad, it's a waste, but you don't care.
You have pity and dismiss pity. Flip-flops might
be able to be your act. Your suit suits you.
>> >> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
>> >>
>> >> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
>> >> maybe all is not lost for you.
>> >
>> >It never did, Tao is all encompass.
>>
>> Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
>> Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
>> Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
>> Others clown a round in a grove.
>
>There's Tao, there's tao, and there's... uhh.. whatever,
Some may say there is only Chang Tao.
Some may say that Chang Tao exists
but that not all ways are Chang Tao.
The TTC may speak of tao-failure, as it were.
The CT may speak of tao-occlusion, as a figure of speech.
>> >> >> such is how life can be.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can be better.
>> >>
>> >> some enjoy better and better.
>> >> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
>> >
>> >Some enjoy being humiliated,
>>
>> some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
>
>Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
In your mind, you have made a bozo out of a bozo.
Dressing him up in a clown suit of your taste
you throw shit until it is worthless. And then say:
>Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
You think you are Tao?
Does humiliation exist as, like, a spirit of possession?
Do you feel as if I am humiliated?
Do you think you have brought humiliation out of me?
Or have you simply being tossing your shit around
for the pure joy of adding humiliation to humiliation?
Your projections are astounding.
Perhaps you were humiliated as a child, eh?
>> >thinking that they struggle against some
>> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
>>
>> Uh, hmmm.
>> Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
>> I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
>
>That's your own projection, though I may shine you the way a bit,
You are so kind.
And in so shining your shit, it is of much value to you.
>> Are you struggling against some authority figure?
>
>I'm not even struggling, what makes you think that there's authority I
>need to struggle with?
Having a senior moment are you?
Reread your above statement. Wait, I'll copy and paste it.
>> >thinking that they struggle against some
>> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism
Let's turn this around and ask:
"what makes you think that there's authority I
need to struggle with?"
>> And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
>
>No, only happy I am.
Sad at the bozo. Happy you are enlightened.
>> Do you feel mutated?
>
>No.
>
>> -tia.
>
>Don't mention it.
>
>>
>> >> >> >Just talk about won't help either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> some enjoy talking.
>> >> >
>> >> >Obviously.
>> >>
>> >> obviously.
>> >>
>> >> >> they may spend countless hours
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe,
>> >> >
>> >> >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
>> >> >
>> >> >when they're behind the techno curve.
>> >>
>> >> how many hours have you spent so far
>> >> in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
>> >
>> >What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
>> >different activities;
>>
>> I've done both, and do know.
>> Your presumption that I don't know
>> is simply your presumption.
>
>It was your statement, not my care a bit.
My statement, your presumption.
When your shit is worthless you will spend
countless hours doing something else. You may
think that something else is of worth. Perhaps you think
that throwing shit is a worthy thing for you to do.
>> > nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
>> >the most posts, try to catch up?
>>
>> catch up to what?
>
>Your half-baked Taoism.
Perhaps you think you know all
that Taoism has ever been or ever will be.
Such is the view of many who say there is but
a single mountain with many roads to the top.
Some may think\feel that Taoism is worth study
and they dig a round in ancient China, uncovering
silks and pottery, views change. Some however,
prefer not to do their own translations of works
such as the Chuang-tzu because they are lazy.
Some would rather throw shit, until it is worthless.
>> >> can you count them all?
>> >
>> >and you even count them?
>>
>> why bother?
>> why do you spend countless hours here?
>
>Interesting question, but you don't see yourself spend countless hours
>here?
Oh I most certainly do.
As a bozo it is entirely fun.
So why do you spend lots of hours
throwing your shit until it is worthless.
Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
>> >> >> some may have better things to do
>> >> >> but remain here none-the-less.
>> >> >> funny, t'hats.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
>> >>
>> >> probably. hopefully.
>> >> but it may make them sad.
>> >
>> >Only human.
>>
>> such is life.
>
>Some life is good, and some life just pathetic.
Some see bozo, the clown, as pathos.
They are sad, they think it's a waste,
and they say they don't care but throw shit
until they feel it is worthless. Some value their shit
and will throw it at a bozo. Others smoke shit.
Some shit is better than others.
>> >> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some dismiss themselves.
>> >>
>> >> they may rest.
>> >> they may return.
>> >
>> >Or denying their own existence.
>>
>> You deny your own existence?
>
>Don't tell me you're going to dismiss yourself again!
I begin with dismissing myself.
You dismiss yourself after your find your shit
is no longer worth anything. How much is it worth today?
Will you sell it on the stock market?
>> Some identify with everything.
>> Some identify with nothing.
>> A way of affirmation exists.
>> A way of negation exists.
>> Many ways exist.
>
>Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao.
So there is a way, and there is Way.
Just being tao doesn't make it Tao/Dao, eh?
>> Dao ke dao.
>> Does that sound like a chant to you?
>
>Yes.
How about:
"Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
How would you translate that English
into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
>> >> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
>> >>
>> >> better is a tao.
>> >
>> >Trivial.
>>
>> your words my friend.
>
>Overlook your words again?
Better not to read them?
Please, translate a bit of Chinese into English
or English into Chinese. Is it trivial, to you?
>> >> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
>> >>
>> >> some go for a rest and return today.
>> >
>> >Daily living.
>>
>> n'ice two-play a round, width wu
>>
>> >> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
>> >> >
>> >> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
>> >>
>> >> sometimes we agree to disagree.
>> >> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
>> >
>> >It depends on how you agree or disagree.
>> >Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
>>
>> You are heading into Teh-red?
>
>Question?
Is your shit worth anything?
At what point will your shit become worthless?
>> >> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
>> >> >> does not argue,
>> >> >
>> >> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
>> >>
>> >> some think they are fancy with words.
>> >
>> >Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
>>
>> sum th'inks eye is clever.
>> such is th'air project'ion.
>
>So you don't think your are fancy with words?
Some see my nature as fancy.
Some see my words as clever.
Eye seas m'aye words as dancy
tripping One in two m'any things.
>> >> >and do what they say.
>>
>> >> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
>> >> >little children starve...
>> >>
>> >> now that you mention it.
>> >
>> >For your short memory.
>>
>> you still do nothing?
>> and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
>
>I have done my share to point it out, it was an unnecessary concern
>and what a hypocritical neo-confucian idea it was, and as you brought
>up the subject, what did you do about it?
I asked you. Was that not enough?
If an enlightened master does nothing,
ought a bozo do something?
>> >> >> some identify themselves with everything.
>> >> >
>> >> >Everything is everything?
>> >>
>> >> Is that a question?
>> >
>> >How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
>>
>> I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
>> It may go over your head.
>> You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
>> You may think it's a misinterpretation
>> of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
>
>I can see how you'll cut&paste, however, first thing first, "what" is
>"everything," and how do you account for them?
Words can mean anything one chooses.
The term "Universe" can mean "everything";
the term "world" can mean "everything".
Terms are accounted when meaning is transmitted.
Terms are unnecessary, at time beyond time.
>> >> >> some are interested in an easier way
>> >> >> of mind\body unism,
>> >> >
>> >> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
>> >>
>> >> when Zz's wife died
>> >
>> >Huh?
>>
>> I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
>> When the CT speaks of mourning,
>> as it does on more than one occasion,
>> what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
>
>I thought you knew about "true man."
Then why did you ask?
Your true thinking fuzzy, again?
Not quite sure if I'm really a bozo?
Or just wanted to add a stripe to the suit
you find suits your shit well, ribbit?
>> Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
>
>Maybe.
"Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
>> >> >> as an example.
>> >> >
>> >> >if you can see.
>> >>
>> >> being sad,
>> >> being glad,
>> >> being a bozo,
>> >> being an enlightened master
>> >
>> >To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
>>
>> your projections are endless.
>> thoughts interest your no-mind.
>
>What else a bozo would think when he runs around all over the grove
>and tells everybody that their idea of Tao is not Tao because he knows
>"dao ke dao..."?
"Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
>:)
tein
guinness?
JP
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:159b2de1.03032...@posting.google.com...
> jaybuz...@cs.comm (Jaybuzin0000) wrote in message
news:<20030327062405...@mb-ff.news.cs.com>...
> > ichin at last, finished his rest:
> > >jay had written:
> >
> > >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
> >
> > I'm not sure who your "we" is
> > but I've been a bozo from day One.
............................banter snipped
> >
> > >> they may spend countless hours
> > >
> > >Maybe,
> > >
> > >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
> > >
> > >when they're behind the techno curve.
> >
> > how many hours have you spent so far
> > in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
>
> What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
> different activities; nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
> the most posts, try to catch up?
>
> > can you count them all?
>
> and you even count them?
Google counts them.....
The buzzer stands at 2,670
The chin at 316
This only applies to these email names.
From the times and dates of the posts it would appear
that the activity occurs mainly during business hours.
One appears to be self employed, the other not.
Therefore the blessings of certain philosophical meanderings
are subsidized by an anonymous third party.
I am grateful for their longtime sponsership.
And the programs that made it all possible.
Doctornine
Water methodologies flow and surround until they bubble up and out.
D9
Doctornine
;)
D9
Jaybuzin0000
>23 new shits on the wall
>guinness?
spacial stout?
Jaybuzin0000
>Heh...
eye once sawed a guy
or once he sawed me
wearinging floppy shoes
in half teh times
> ;)
>D9
a round
a camp fire
a bamboo grove
{8-])))
Jaybuzin0000
>Fire methodologies use active, prescribed practices to burn a path.
>
>Water methodologies flow and surround until they bubble up and out.
reminds me of a song.
can't quite recall who sang it.
He was, up on a tight wire,
or was it rope? mebbe both.
-memories
{8-])))
tein
i was thinking more
like world records
zisixi
> >zisixi flapped
I love that story.
zisixi
on dirt fields
may help produce
shit thrown
on green fields
may ruin the produce
potts
"Jaybuzin0000" <jaybuz...@cs.comm> wrote in message
news:20030328060154...@mb-fk.news.cs.com...
Jaybuzin0000
lol,
shows wear me mind isat
Jaybuzin0000
>jay opined and quoted:
[...big gourdian knots, film at eleven...]
>> Flipping of perspectives
>> may be a Dao of Daoism.
>I love that story.
If I was somebody else, I might suggest
that the story really was about something else.
-just a feeling
Jaybuzin0000
>Good one today fellers
happy two oblige
-in the grove
{8-])))
zisixi
I was on the virtual stool next to ya.
gan bei!
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> ichin wrote:
> >> >jay wrote:
> >> >> ichin at last, finished his rest:
> >> >> >jay had written:
>
> >> >> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure who your "we" is
> >> >> but I've been a bozo from day One.
> >> >
> >> >Not sure you even know that,
> >>
> >> of course you aren't sure.
> >>
> >> >before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
> >>
> >> you do what you must do
> >> to prove to yourself what you must prove.
> >
> >That's what I am sure of, and done it.
>
> and now you are throwing shit
> and will do so until it is worthless?
I only do the proving part, the worthless shit is where you stand on,
forgot how it/you got there?
>
> >> >> >some enjoy trivializing,
> >> >>
> >> >> obviously.
> >> >>
> >> >> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
> >> >>
> >> >> your motives are clear.
> >> >>
> >> >> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
> >> >>
> >> >> sew it seams.
> >> >>
> >> >> >while the catfish wriggles.
> >> >>
> >> >> as is its nature.
> >> >
> >> >Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
> >>
> >> Some may think Taoism is about ability.
> >> Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
> >> An ability to think is most fun.
> >
> >Not if the thinking turns into chanting.
>
> Some hear chanting in the written words of others.
> Some think that when birds chirp it means something.
> People can mean lots of things when they speak
> ming ke ming fei chang ming.
> When Chuang Tzu spoke of a bird chirp
> some may think he meant something, ore another.
Chirping it is.
>
> >> >> >No license needed to teach,
> >> >>
> >> >> true.
> >> >>
> >> >> >the question is do you have enough
> >> >> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
> >> >>
> >> >> lots of quest'ions exist.
> >> >> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
> >>
> >> Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
> >
> >Flickering is in your mind.
>
> sea quest ion be low
Yup, "Flickering is in your mind."
>
> >> >> >A bozo talks about credibility?
> >>
> >> As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
> >
> >Not necessarily, as true enlightenment encompasses all as well.
>
> thus, "Yes, when One is enlighted, all questions disappeared"
> and, "Not necessarily, as true enlightenment ... "
> plus, "A bozo talks about credibility?"
> equals, tossing shit until it is worthless.
Sounded like you have a severe diarrhea.
>
> >> >> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
> >> >
> >> >Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
> >>
> >> People define words as they choose.
> >
> >In general, people use words by convention, unless you care to define
> >the words you use.
>
> Some have need of definitions.
> Some are confused and ask for directions.
The wise,
> Some toss shit until it is worthless.
> Then they rest. Then they return.
> They repeat as kneaded.
and the bozo.
>
> >> A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
> >> Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
> >> Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
> >
> >"Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo."
>
> You differentiate between clown and bozo?
Some clown are noble, some clown just down right bozo.
> Some define terms in advance. Some in retreat.
> Some nEver dew. Such is teh case.
Some talk without knowing the terms they used.
>
> >> >> >that's novelty.
> >> >>
> >> >> true.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
> >> >>
> >> >> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
> >> >
> >> >It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
> >> >throw at it, then I won't.
> >>
> >> Some rest, then they return.
> >> Some like to throw shit around
> >> until their shit is worthless.
> >
> >Yes, as their characters bankrupted, there's no redemption.
>
> " when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
> throw at it, then I won't."
>
> When your shit is worthless, have you redeemed much?
I don't talk about shit, the shit you think you read is in your mind.
When it full of it, you can't tell nothing but shit.
>
> >> >> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
> >> >> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains it
> >> >> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some so-called true masters
> >> >> are given their title from a respected lineage.
> >> >
> >> >Then, there's scandal.
> >>
> >> You have been involved in a scandal?
> >> Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
> >
> >Your insinuation is amazing,
>
> In other words, you never studied with any reputable teachers.
Not really, I learned from the best, Tao/nature.
> You read a few books. Became "enlightened" after having
> found gravity.
> And now you toss shit until it is worthless.
Yup, that's how it works.
> You actions speak very highly of your self-respect.
Naturally.
>
> >> Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
> >
> >No, the transmission to six patriarch Hui-Neng is an obvious example.
>
> Who authorized Hui-Neng? Whom did Hui-Neng authorize?
> A transmission is a formal rite of passage. Being informal
> can be a dao also.
> Dao ke dao. Does that sound like a chant?
Yes, "Chanting is citing verses [repeatedly] without knowing the
meanings of them."
>
> >> >> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
> >> >> most anything they choose.
> >> >
> >> >A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
> >>
> >> I don't recall thinking that.
> >> Did Chuang Chou consider himself
> >> to be an enlightened master?
> >
> >Too much work to explain to you what CT really said, really,
>
> Ah. So you are lazy at Taoism
> but have energy for tossing worthless shit.
> Perhaps Taoism would refresh you
> and your shit wouldn't be as worthless.
No, that's because you are such lack of contents/characters, nothing
worth something could stand up in you.
>
> >> Where does it say such a thing?
> >
> >what do you think "true man" is?
>
> Check google for copies and pastes.
> Read the Chuang-tzu and translate it into English.
>
> >> Why do you say such strange things?
> >
> >Not a strange thing in Chinese, it's you know too little.
>
> Some see things in the words of others
> but what they see is not what others see.
> Dao ke dao, ming ke ming.
As said, these words are neither Chinese, nor English,
yup, "Some see things in the words of others but what they see is not
what others see."
>
> >> >> In some respects
> >> >> being certain ways is respectful.
> >> >
> >> >Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
> >>
> >> Respect may reflect self-respect.
> >
> >And irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect.
>
> Thus your lack.
"irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect."
>
> >> >> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
> >> >>
> >> >> some professions are respectful.
> >> >> some have no use for another's ways.
> >> >
> >> >Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
> >>
> >> Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
> >
> >No, but a clown bozo character is [in low esteem].
>
> Ah. So in your eyes there are levels of clowns
> within the profession. Some are deemed higher
> and some are lower, in your eyes. This is interesting.
There's low because there's high.
>
> >> >> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
> >> >> >yourself out of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> don't be sad my friend.
> >> >
> >> >Not for me, thanks,
> >>
> >> Nobody said you should be a bozo.
> >> You simply are what you are.
> >
> >You "simply" don't know what "are" is.
>
> It doesn't make any difference.
> You simply are what you are.
That's to say you don't know what's in the contents.
>
> >> >> it's okay tho when
> >> >> some think they catch a fish
> >> >> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
> >> >
> >> >Some [human] think they are catfish,
> >> >and stress their ability in wiggles.
> >>
> >> As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
> >> aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
> >> and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
> >> that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
> >
> >Ok, "a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows" it is.
>
> c.a.t.f.i.s.h.
> It's an acronym.
> Perhaps, in your eyes, this is even lower than a bozo.
> Maybe you can think of the lowest possible thing
> and I may say I am that too. Being a rainbow at heart,
> there is no colour I am not.
Neither white nor black,
>
> Some will deny aspects of themselves
> and contend that such a this\that is not in them.
> Others will see how degrees exist, and how all parts
> of the body/mind are one, complete, undifferentiable.
just a blot of undifferentiable colors.
>
> >> >> and yet it makes them sad.
> >> >
> >> >It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
> >>
> >> You pity clowns?
> >
> >Not that I care.
>
> But you hold bozo, the clown, in low esteem
They are, in fact.
> and it makes you sad, it's a waste, but you don't care.
Why should I care that they are capable yet unable or willing to pull
themselves out of the mud and into a better environment?
> You have pity and dismiss pity.
I don't pity, only state the "state of being," when you feel pity,
that's to say, it fits.
> Flip-flops might
> be able to be your act. Your suit suits you.
Flip-flopping is your game, what are you now? Neo-taoist? No, it
sounded more like a neo-confucian. Of course, bozo still fits.
>
> >> >> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
> >> >>
> >> >> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
> >> >> maybe all is not lost for you.
> >> >
> >> >It never did, Tao is all encompass.
> >>
> >> Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
> >> Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
> >> Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
> >> Others clown a round in a grove.
> >
> >There's Tao, there's tao, and there's... uhh.. whatever,
>
> Some may say there is only Chang Tao.
> Some may say that Chang Tao exists
> but that not all ways are Chang Tao.
> The TTC may speak of tao-failure, as it were.
> The CT may speak of tao-occlusion, as a figure of speech.
Yup, whatever.
>
> >> >> >> such is how life can be.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Can be better.
> >> >>
> >> >> some enjoy better and better.
> >> >> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
> >> >
> >> >Some enjoy being humiliated,
> >>
> >> some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
> >
> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
>
> In your mind, you have made a bozo out of a bozo.
> Dressing him up in a clown suit of your taste
> you throw shit until it is worthless. And then say:
>
> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
Yes, in essence, Tao doesn't speak, it reflects like a mirror, the
humiliation you see is your own image.
>
> You think you are Tao?
No, nevertheless, I know it well.
> Does humiliation exist as, like, a spirit of possession?
Yes,
>
> Do you feel as if I am humiliated?
What else makes you keep coming back? You enjoy being call bozo, don't
you?
> Do you think you have brought humiliation out of me?
No, as you are shameless, you may not be capable of feeling it.
> Or have you simply being tossing your shit around
> for the pure joy of adding humiliation to humiliation?
Your taste for yourself.
>
> Your projections are astounding.
> Perhaps you were humiliated as a child, eh?
Yes and no, life of a war orphan was tough, but I learned not be
humiliated by making myself more knowledgeable.
>
> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
> >>
> >> Uh, hmmm.
> >> Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
> >> I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
> >
> >That's your own projection, though I may shine you the way a bit,
>
> You are so kind.
> And in so shining your shit, it is of much value to you.
Just so we know what is a real bozo looks like.
>
> >> Are you struggling against some authority figure?
> >
> >I'm not even struggling, what makes you think that there's authority I
> >need to struggle with?
>
> Having a senior moment are you?
> Reread your above statement. Wait, I'll copy and paste it.
> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism
>
> Let's turn this around and ask:
> "what makes you think that there's authority I
> need to struggle with?"
Yes, you think I'm the authority you must struggle with, so you frame
me, flame me, did I tell you don't play with fire that you may get
burn yourself?
>
> >> And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
> >
> >No, only happy I am.
>
> Sad at the bozo. Happy you are enlightened.
Naturally.
>
> >> Do you feel mutated?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >> -tia.
> >
> >Don't mention it.
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> >Just talk about won't help either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> some enjoy talking.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Obviously.
> >> >>
> >> >> obviously.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> they may spend countless hours
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> developing web sites or in usenet groups.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >when they're behind the techno curve.
> >> >>
> >> >> how many hours have you spent so far
> >> >> in simply sitting and writing in a.p.t.?
> >> >
> >> >What you don't know is developing web sites and writing in a.p.t. are
> >> >different activities;
> >>
> >> I've done both, and do know.
> >> Your presumption that I don't know
> >> is simply your presumption.
> >
> >It was your statement, not my care a bit.
>
> My statement, your presumption.
Your statement is your statement, if there's presumption it is yours.
> When your shit is worthless you will spend
> countless hours doing something else. You may
> think that something else is of worth. Perhaps you think
> that throwing shit is a worthy thing for you to do.
No, you keep coming back and bagging for more, I'm just kind of
helping out in the grove, guess you enjoy being call bozo.
>
> >> > nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
> >> >the most posts, try to catch up?
> >>
> >> catch up to what?
> >
> >Your half-baked Taoism.
>
> Perhaps you think you know all
> that Taoism has ever been or ever will be.
No, one main theme of Taoism teaching is "don't chase the ends," it is
not every branch of Taoism worth to investigate.
> Such is the view of many who say there is but
> a single mountain with many roads to the top.
> Some may think\feel that Taoism is worth study
> and they dig a round in ancient China, uncovering
> silks and pottery, views change.
View of no view.
> Some however,
> prefer not to do their own translations of works
> such as the Chuang-tzu because they are lazy.
I did, you snipped, now why I bother?
> Some would rather throw shit, until it is worthless.
Yup, shit goes downward as well.
>
> >> >> can you count them all?
> >> >
> >> >and you even count them?
> >>
> >> why bother?
> >> why do you spend countless hours here?
> >
> >Interesting question, but you don't see yourself spend countless hours
> >here?
>
> Oh I most certainly do.
> As a bozo it is entirely fun.
> So why do you spend lots of hours
> throwing your shit until it is worthless.
"My shop has everything. You want gold, I sell gold; you want shit, I
sell that too."--Yang Shan Chan Shi--
> Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
No, I'm your buddha.
>
> >> >> >> some may have better things to do
> >> >> >> but remain here none-the-less.
> >> >> >> funny, t'hats.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
> >> >>
> >> >> probably. hopefully.
> >> >> but it may make them sad.
> >> >
> >> >Only human.
> >>
> >> such is life.
> >
> >Some life is good, and some life just pathetic.
>
> Some see bozo, the clown, as pathos.
> They are sad, they think it's a waste,
> and they say they don't care but throw shit
> until they feel it is worthless. Some value their shit
> and will throw it at a bozo. Others smoke shit.
> Some shit is better than others.
Welcome to the real world.
>
> >> >> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Some dismiss themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> they may rest.
> >> >> they may return.
> >> >
> >> >Or denying their own existence.
> >>
> >> You deny your own existence?
> >
> >Don't tell me you're going to dismiss yourself again!
>
> I begin with dismissing myself.
Yup, melting like spineless.
> You dismiss yourself after your find your shit
> is no longer worth anything. How much is it worth today?
Nothing for worthless.
> Will you sell it on the stock market?
And you think people even buy this shit?
>
> >> Some identify with everything.
> >> Some identify with nothing.
> >> A way of affirmation exists.
> >> A way of negation exists.
> >> Many ways exist.
> >
> >Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao.
>
> So there is a way, and there is Way.
> Just being tao doesn't make it Tao/Dao, eh?
Yup, I said that.
>
> >> Dao ke dao.
> >> Does that sound like a chant to you?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> How about:
> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
> How would you translate that English
> into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
>
> >> >> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
> >> >>
> >> >> better is a tao.
> >> >
> >> >Trivial.
> >>
> >> your words my friend.
> >
> >Overlook your words again?
>
> Better not to read them?
Dare not to read your own words?
> Please, translate a bit of Chinese into English
> or English into Chinese. Is it trivial, to you?
Guess we haven't seen all of you.
>
> >> >> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
> >> >>
> >> >> some go for a rest and return today.
> >> >
> >> >Daily living.
> >>
> >> n'ice two-play a round, width wu
> >>
> >> >> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
> >> >>
> >> >> sometimes we agree to disagree.
> >> >> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
> >> >
> >> >It depends on how you agree or disagree.
> >> >Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
> >>
> >> You are heading into Teh-red?
> >
> >Question?
>
> Is your shit worth anything?
Yes, my Tao makes what you call "master," your dao makes what you call
"bozo," the value is obvious.
> At what point will your shit become worthless?
When a worthless person receives it.
>
> >> >> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
> >> >> >> does not argue,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
> >> >>
> >> >> some think they are fancy with words.
> >> >
> >> >Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
> >>
> >> sum th'inks eye is clever.
> >> such is th'air project'ion.
> >
> >So you don't think your are fancy with words?
>
> Some see my nature as fancy.
> Some see my words as clever.
> Eye seas m'aye words as dancy
> tripping One in two m'any things.
"Yup, wordswords comes to mind." Proven fact is no projection.
>
> >> >> >and do what they say.
>
> >> >> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking about
> >> >> >little children starve...
> >> >>
> >> >> now that you mention it.
> >> >
> >> >For your short memory.
> >>
> >> you still do nothing?
> >> and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
> >
> >I have done my share to point it out, it was an unnecessary concern
> >and what a hypocritical neo-confucian idea it was, and as you brought
> >up the subject, what did you do about it?
>
> I asked you. Was that not enough?
> If an enlightened master does nothing,
> ought a bozo do something?
Not necessarily, but you did, being a hypocritical neo-confucian to
mention it.
>
> >> >> >> some identify themselves with everything.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Everything is everything?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that a question?
> >> >
> >> >How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
> >>
> >> I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
> >> It may go over your head.
> >> You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
> >> You may think it's a misinterpretation
> >> of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
> >
> >I can see how you'll cut&paste, however, first thing first, "what" is
> >"everything," and how do you account for them?
>
> Words can mean anything one chooses.
> The term "Universe" can mean "everything";
> the term "world" can mean "everything".
> Terms are accounted when meaning is transmitted.
> Terms are unnecessary, at time beyond time.
Yup, "everything is everything."
>
> >> >> >> some are interested in an easier way
> >> >> >> of mind\body unism,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
> >> >>
> >> >> when Zz's wife died
> >> >
> >> >Huh?
> >>
> >> I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
> >> When the CT speaks of mourning,
> >> as it does on more than one occasion,
> >> what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
> >
> >I thought you knew about "true man."
>
> Then why did you ask?
> Your true thinking fuzzy, again?
No, just to answer your question. Don't recall you asked already? just
look a couple of lines up. Or maybe you just don't know what the
conversation was.
> Not quite sure if I'm really a bozo?
We are quite sure of it,
> Or just wanted to add a stripe to the suit
> you find suits your shit well, ribbit?
you have doubt that we know you are a bozo?
>
> >> Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
> >
> >Maybe.
>
> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
>
> >> >> >> as an example.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >if you can see.
> >> >>
> >> >> being sad,
> >> >> being glad,
> >> >> being a bozo,
> >> >> being an enlightened master
> >> >
> >> >To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
> >>
> >> your projections are endless.
> >> thoughts interest your no-mind.
> >
> >What else a bozo would think when he runs around all over the grove
> >and tells everybody that their idea of Tao is not Tao because he knows
> >"dao ke dao..."?
>
> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
:)
IS
>
> >:)
> >IS
> >
> >>
> >> >:)
> >> >IS
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > :)
> >> >> >IS
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>> ichin wrote:
>> >jay wrote:
>> >> ichin wrote:
>> >> >jay wrote:
>> >> >> ichin at last, finished his rest:
>> >> >> >jay had written:
>> >> >> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not sure who your "we" is
>> >> >> but I've been a bozo from day One.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not sure you even know that,
>> >>
>> >> of course you aren't sure.
>> >>
>> >> >before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
>> >>
>> >> you do what you must do
>> >> to prove to yourself what you must prove.
>> >
>> >That's what I am sure of, and done it.
>>
>> and now you are throwing shit
>> and will do so until it is worthless?
>
>I only do the proving part, the worthless shit is where you stand on,
>forgot how it/you got there?
utility of the useless.
>> >> >> >some enjoy trivializing,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> obviously.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> your motives are clear.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey
>king.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> sew it seams.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >while the catfish wriggles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as is its nature.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
>> >>
>> >> Some may think Taoism is about ability.
>> >> Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
>> >> An ability to think is most fun.
>> >
>> >Not if the thinking turns into chanting.
>>
>> Some hear chanting in the written words of others.
>> Some think that when birds chirp it means something.
>> People can mean lots of things when they speak
>> ming ke ming fei chang ming.
>> When Chuang Tzu spoke of a bird chirp
>> some may think he meant something, ore another.
>
>Chirping it is.
always was.
>> >> >> >No license needed to teach,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >the question is do you have enough
>> >> >> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> lots of quest'ions exist.
>> >> >> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
>> >>
>> >> Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
>> >
>> >Flickering is in your mind.
>>
>> sea quest ion be low
>
>Yup, "Flickering is in your mind."
flying flags.
>> >> >> >A bozo talks about credibility?
>> >>
>> >> As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
>> >
>> >Not necessarily, as true enlightenment encompasses all as well.
>>
>> thus, "Yes, when One is enlighted, all questions disappeared"
>> and, "Not necessarily, as true enlightenment ... "
>> plus, "A bozo talks about credibility?"
>> equals, tossing shit until it is worthless.
>
>Sounded like you have a severe diarrhea.
your mind moves.
>> >> >> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
>> >>
>> >> People define words as they choose.
>> >
>> >In general, people use words by convention, unless you care to define
>> >the words you use.
>>
>> Some have need of definitions.
>> Some are confused and ask for directions.
>
>The wise,
some simply remain confused and throw shit
as a howler monkey in a bamboo grove.
>> Some toss shit until it is worthless.
>> Then they rest. Then they return.
>> They repeat as kneaded.
>
>and the bozo.
and the howler.
>> >> A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
>> >> Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
>> >> Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
>> >
>> >"Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo."
>>
>> You differentiate between clown and bozo?
>
>Some clown are noble, some clown just down right bozo.
some monkeys are just monkeys.
>> Some define terms in advance. Some in retreat.
>> Some nEver dew. Such is teh case.
>
>Some talk without knowing the terms they used.
some talk and toss shit.
confused by the words of others
they know nothing else to do.
>> >> >> >that's novelty.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
>> >> >throw at it, then I won't.
>> >>
>> >> Some rest, then they return.
>> >> Some like to throw shit around
>> >> until their shit is worthless.
>> >
>> >Yes, as their characters bankrupted, there's no redemption.
>>
>> " when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
>> throw at it, then I won't."
>>
>> When your shit is worthless, have you redeemed much?
>
>I don't talk about shit,
not only do you talk about it,
you throw it around until it is worthless.
>the shit you think you read is in your mind.
your mind moves.
>When it full of it, you can't tell nothing but shit.
when you find it is worthless, you stop.
>> >> >> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
>> >> >> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains
>it
>> >> >> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some so-called true masters
>> >> >> are given their title from a respected lineage.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then, there's scandal.
>> >>
>> >> You have been involved in a scandal?
>> >> Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
>> >
>> >Your insinuation is amazing,
>>
>> In other words, you never studied with any reputable teachers.
>
>Not really, I learned from the best, Tao/nature.
Incredible can mean lots of things to lots of people.
>> You read a few books. Became "enlightened" after having
>> found gravity.
>> And now you toss shit until it is worthless.
>
>Yup, that's how it works.
when your shit is worthless, you will again rest.
>> You actions speak very highly of your self-respect.
>
>Naturally.
of course.
>> >> Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
>> >
>> >No, the transmission to six patriarch Hui-Neng is an obvious example.
>>
>> Who authorized Hui-Neng? Whom did Hui-Neng authorize?
>> A transmission is a formal rite of passage. Being informal
>> can be a dao also.
>> Dao ke dao. Does that sound like a chant?
>
>Yes, "Chanting is citing verses [repeatedly] without knowing the
>meanings of them."
some see meaning in tossing shit
until it is worthless. then they rest.
then they return and do it again.
>> >> >> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
>> >> >> most anything they choose.
>> >> >
>> >> >A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
>> >>
>> >> I don't recall thinking that.
>> >> Did Chuang Chou consider himself
>> >> to be an enlightened master?
>> >
>> >Too much work to explain to you what CT really said, really,
>>
>> Ah. So you are lazy at Taoism
>> but have energy for tossing worthless shit.
>> Perhaps Taoism would refresh you
>> and your shit wouldn't be as worthless.
>
>No, that's because you are such lack of contents/characters, nothing
>worth something could stand up in you.
yet you make time to throw your shit
at such a worthless character as me.
you throw up and you throw up until your shit
becomes worthless in your mind.
>> >> Where does it say such a thing?
>> >
>> >what do you think "true man" is?
>>
>> Check google for copies and pastes.
>> Read the Chuang-tzu and translate it into English.
>>
>> >> Why do you say such strange things?
>> >
>> >Not a strange thing in Chinese, it's you know too little.
>>
>> Some see things in the words of others
>> but what they see is not what others see.
>> Dao ke dao, ming ke ming.
>
>As said, these words are neither Chinese, nor English,
As said, better not to read them.
Words such as -Yang Shan Chan Shi-
or Xian-Sheng, neither Chinese, nor English.
Some think they are wise. Their minds move.
>yup, "Some see things in the words of others but what they see is not
>what others see."
Some hear ming ke ming fei chang ming as a chant.
To some it is neither Chinese nor English.
Their mind moves. They throw up shit.
>> >> >> In some respects
>> >> >> being certain ways is respectful.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
>> >>
>> >> Respect may reflect self-respect.
>> >
>> >And irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect.
>>
>> Thus your lack.
>
>"irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect."
Thus your lack. Neither Chinese nor English.
Throwing up shit. Monkey mind moves.
>> >> >> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> some professions are respectful.
>> >> >> some have no use for another's ways.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
>> >>
>> >> Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
>> >
>> >No, but a clown bozo character is [in low esteem].
>>
>> Ah. So in your eyes there are levels of clowns
>> within the profession. Some are deemed higher
>> and some are lower, in your eyes. This is interesting.
>
>There's low because there's high.
mind moves
>> >> >> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
>> >> >> >yourself out of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> don't be sad my friend.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not for me, thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Nobody said you should be a bozo.
>> >> You simply are what you are.
>> >
>> >You "simply" don't know what "are" is.
>>
>> It doesn't make any difference.
>> You simply are what you are.
>
>That's to say you don't know what's in the contents.
That's to say it doesn't matter.
You simply are what you are.
>> >> >> it's okay tho when
>> >> >> some think they catch a fish
>> >> >> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some [human] think they are catfish,
>> >> >and stress their ability in wiggles.
>> >>
>> >> As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
>> >> aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
>> >> and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
>> >> that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
>> >
>> >Ok, "a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows" it is.
>>
>> c.a.t.f.i.s.h.
>> It's an acronym.
>> Perhaps, in your eyes, this is even lower than a bozo.
>> Maybe you can think of the lowest possible thing
>> and I may say I am that too. Being a rainbow at heart,
>> there is no colour I am not.
>
>Neither white nor black,
Neither Chinese nor English.
Unable to translate. Better to not read.
>> Some will deny aspects of themselves
>> and contend that such a this\that is not in them.
>> Others will see how degrees exist, and how all parts
>> of the body/mind are one, complete, undifferentiable.
>
>just a blot of undifferentiable colors.
just throwing up shit.
>> >> >> and yet it makes them sad.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
>> >>
>> >> You pity clowns?
>> >
>> >Not that I care.
>>
>> But you hold bozo, the clown, in low esteem
>
>They are, in fact.
in your mind.
throwing up shit.
>> and it makes you sad, it's a waste, but you don't care.
>
>Why should I care that they are capable yet unable or willing to pull
>themselves out of the mud and into a better environment?
I have no idea. Why do you care
enuf to throw up shit until it is worthless?
>> You have pity and dismiss pity.
>
>I don't pity, only state the "state of being," when you feel pity,
>that's to say, it fits.
That's to say, your shit is less than worthless.
>> Flip-flops might
>> be able to be your act. Your suit suits you.
>
>Flip-flopping is your game, what are you now?
Still a bozo. Always was.
Are you a worthless piece of thrown up shit yet?
>Neo-taoist?
Unreal Taoist.
How about you. Do you have a title,
such as Xian-Sheng that is neither Chinese nor English?
Bestowing a title on ones'elf, w'hat is t'hat.
You are what you are.
>No, it
>sounded more like a neo-confucian. Of course, bozo still fits.
The sounds in your mind are all in your mind.
Your mind moves. You throw up shit.
>> >> >> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
>> >> >> maybe all is not lost for you.
>> >> >
>> >> >It never did, Tao is all encompass.
>> >>
>> >> Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
>> >> Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
>> >> Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
>> >> Others clown a round in a grove.
>> >
>> >There's Tao, there's tao, and there's... uhh.. whatever,
>>
>> Some may say there is only Chang Tao.
>> Some may say that Chang Tao exists
>> but that not all ways are Chang Tao.
>> The TTC may speak of tao-failure, as it were.
>> The CT may speak of tao-occlusion, as a figure of speech.
>
>Yup, whatever.
Unable to translate, better to not read.
>> >> >> >> such is how life can be.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Can be better.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> some enjoy better and better.
>> >> >> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some enjoy being humiliated,
>> >>
>> >> some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
>> >
>> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
>>
>> In your mind, you have made a bozo out of a bozo.
>> Dressing him up in a clown suit of your taste
>> you throw shit until it is worthless. And then say:
>>
>> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
>
>Yes, in essence, Tao doesn't speak, it reflects like a mirror, the
>humiliation you see is your own image.
I see no humiliation here.
Your mind moves.
>> You think you are Tao?
>
>No, nevertheless, I know it well.
And in your knowing, you throw up shit.
You throw it against a wall to see if it will stick.
Xian-Sheng, neither Chinese nor English.
>> Does humiliation exist as, like, a spirit of possession?
>
>Yes,
Perhaps those who throw up shit are possessed.
>> Do you feel as if I am humiliated?
>
>What else makes you keep coming back?
Thus your admission. Throwing up shit.
>You enjoy being call bozo, don't you?
I find no dishonor in the clown profession.
I see no high nor low in being a bozo.
It's simply what I am at times, spacially h'ears.
>> Do you think you have brought humiliation out of me?
>
>No, as you are shameless, you may not be capable of feeling it.
Being shameless could be bad in your mind.
Being unsure is how you are. You may wish to shame
or humiliate or enlighten yourself or others. Your mind moves.
You may esteem your shit and think it high.
You can throw it up or down or all a round.
When it becomes worthless, you will stop.
After a rest you will return. Such is how you are.
>> Or have you simply being tossing your shit around
>> for the pure joy of adding humiliation to humiliation?
>
>Your taste for yourself.
Some enjoy throwing up shit.
After a spell, they tire. They rest. They return
and throw up more shit. Such is how they are.
>> Your projections are astounding.
>> Perhaps you were humiliated as a child, eh?
>
>Yes and no, life of a war orphan was tough, but I learned not be
>humiliated by making myself more knowledgeable.
Some may think that knowledge is a way
to avoid humiliation. Others find other ways.
Some are shameless and unhumiliated
by those who throw up shit.
>> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
>> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
>> >>
>> >> Uh, hmmm.
>> >> Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
>> >> I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
>> >
>> >That's your own projection, though I may shine you the way a bit,
>>
>> You are so kind.
>> And in so shining your shit, it is of much value to you.
>
>Just so we know what is a real bozo looks like.
Just to make sure. And after "we" know
then "we" rest. Then "we" return. Again and again.
>> >> Are you struggling against some authority figure?
>> >
>> >I'm not even struggling, what makes you think that there's authority I
>> >need to struggle with?
>>
>> Having a senior moment are you?
>> Reread your above statement. Wait, I'll copy and paste it.
>> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
>> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism
>>
>> Let's turn this around and ask:
>> "what makes you think that there's authority I
>> need to struggle with?"
>
>Yes, you think I'm the authority you must struggle with,
You are deluded.
>so you frame
>me, flame me, did I tell you don't play with fire that you may get
>burn yourself?
You say lots of things. You throw up shit.
Your mind moves. I don't struggle with you.
I play a round in the grove with you
until you rest until you return
and then we play, another day.
>> >> And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
>> >
>> >No, only happy I am.
>>
>> Sad at the bozo. Happy you are enlightened.
>
>Naturally.
Such is how you are.
You have fixed terms in your mind.
To you a bozo makes you sad.
You project all sorts of things.
You throw up shit. Then you rest.
I never left. I need no rest.
>I'm just kind of
>helping out in the grove, guess you enjoy being call bozo.
It doesn't bother me. It's simply who I am, at times.
Hats are worn by those who enjoy hats. You may enjoy
calling me a bozo. You might like to prove again
and again and again and again that I am.
It may make you sad to think I am.
Such is how you are.
>> >> > nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
>> >> >the most posts, try to catch up?
>> >>
>> >> catch up to what?
>> >
>> >Your half-baked Taoism.
>>
>> Perhaps you think you know all
>> that Taoism has ever been or ever will be.
>
>No, one main theme of Taoism teaching is "don't chase the ends," it is
>not every branch of Taoism worth to investigate.
Some chase the end of a bozo.
After a while they tire. They rest. They return.
The find it worthy to investigate. To prove.
They throw up shit until it is worthless.
>> Such is the view of many who say there is but
>> a single mountain with many roads to the top.
>> Some may think\feel that Taoism is worth study
>> and they dig a round in ancient China, uncovering
>> silks and pottery, views change.
>
>View of no view.
A moving mind.
>> Some however,
>> prefer not to do their own translations of works
>> such as the Chuang-tzu because they are lazy.
>
>I did, you snipped, now why I bother?
Perhaps you shit has become worthless.
Neither Chinese, nor English. Xian-Sheng.
Better to not read.
>> Some would rather throw shit, until it is worthless.
>
>Yup, shit goes downward as well.
Yup, until it is worthless. Then you rest.
Your shit goes up. Your shit goes down.
You throw up shit all a round. Then you rest.
>> >> >> can you count them all?
>> >> >
>> >> >and you even count them?
>> >>
>> >> why bother?
>> >> why do you spend countless hours here?
>> >
>> >Interesting question, but you don't see yourself spend countless hours
>> >here?
>>
>> Oh I most certainly do.
>> As a bozo it is entirely fun.
>> So why do you spend lots of hours
>> throwing your shit until it is worthless.
>
>"My shop has everything. You want gold, I sell gold; you want shit, I
>sell that too."--Yang Shan Chan Shi--
-Yang Shan Chan Shi- neither Chinese nor English.
>> Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
>
>No, I'm your buddha.
You are deluded.
>> >> >> >> some may have better things to do
>> >> >> >> but remain here none-the-less.
>> >> >> >> funny, t'hats.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> probably. hopefully.
>> >> >> but it may make them sad.
>> >> >
>> >> >Only human.
>> >>
>> >> such is life.
>> >
>> >Some life is good, and some life just pathetic.
>>
>> Some see bozo, the clown, as pathos.
>> They are sad, they think it's a waste,
>> and they say they don't care but throw shit
>> until they feel it is worthless. Some value their shit
>> and will throw it at a bozo. Others smoke shit.
>> Some shit is better than others.
>
>Welcome to the real world.
Your mind moves.
>> >> >> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Some dismiss themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> they may rest.
>> >> >> they may return.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or denying their own existence.
>> >>
>> >> You deny your own existence?
>> >
>> >Don't tell me you're going to dismiss yourself again!
>>
>> I begin with dismissing myself.
>
>Yup, melting like spineless.
In your mind.
>> You dismiss yourself after your find your shit
>> is no longer worth anything. How much is it worth today?
>
>Nothing for worthless.
You are approaching your rest.
Always play the rests.
>> Will you sell it on the stock market?
>
>And you think people even buy this shit?
Apparently you do. Your mind moves.
>> >> Some identify with everything.
>> >> Some identify with nothing.
>> >> A way of affirmation exists.
>> >> A way of negation exists.
>> >> Many ways exist.
>> >
>> >Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao.
>>
>> So there is a way, and there is Way.
>> Just being tao doesn't make it Tao/Dao, eh?
>
>Yup, I said that.
Neither Chinese nor English.
Better to not read.
>> >> Dao ke dao.
>> >> Does that sound like a chant to you?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> How about:
>> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
>> How would you translate that English
>> into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
>
>Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
Neither Chinese nor English
what do you call it? Is it refreshing to you?
Perhaps a new term: Water-words.
>> >> >> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> better is a tao.
>> >> >
>> >> >Trivial.
>> >>
>> >> your words my friend.
>> >
>> >Overlook your words again?
>>
>> Better not to read them?
>
>Dare not to read your own words?
Some dare others to do things.
Some see some things as better than others.
Some see all things the same.
>> Please, translate a bit of Chinese into English
>> or English into Chinese. Is it trivial, to you?
>
>Guess we haven't seen all of you.
Being deluded, guess you and your we
may or may not have seen most anything.
>> >> >> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> some go for a rest and return today.
>> >> >
>> >> >Daily living.
>> >>
>> >> n'ice two-play a round, width wu
>> >>
>> >> >> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> sometimes we agree to disagree.
>> >> >> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on how you agree or disagree.
>> >> >Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
>> >>
>> >> You are heading into Teh-red?
>> >
>> >Question?
>>
>> Is your shit worth anything?
>
>Yes,
Until it isn't.
>my Tao makes what you call "master,"
An interesting choice of words.
>your dao makes what you call
>"bozo," the value is obvious.
Your mind moves.
>> At what point will your shit become worthless?
>
>When a worthless person receives it.
Curious. First you find a worthless person.
Then you throw up shit until they receive it.
Then your shit becomes worthless.
A most interesting and curious Tao you have.
-Yang Shan Chan Shi- Neither Chinese nor English.
>> >> >> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
>> >> >> >> does not argue,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> some think they are fancy with words.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
>> >>
>> >> sum th'inks eye is clever.
>> >> such is th'air project'ion.
>> >
>> >So you don't think your are fancy with words?
>>
>> Some see my nature as fancy.
>> Some see my words as clever.
>> Eye seas m'aye words as dancy
>> tripping One in two m'any things.
>
>"Yup, wordswords comes to mind." Proven fact is no projection.
Throwing up shit is no delusion.
Thinking that others see you as an authority figure
against whom to struggle, or that they see you as their buddha
is the Tao of many whose shit flows thru here.
They are called delusional.
>> >> >> >and do what they say.
>>
>> >> >> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking
>about
>> >> >> >little children starve...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> now that you mention it.
>> >> >
>> >> >For your short memory.
>> >>
>> >> you still do nothing?
>> >> and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
>> >
>> >I have done my share to point it out, it was an unnecessary concern
>> >and what a hypocritical neo-confucian idea it was, and as you brought
>> >up the subject, what did you do about it?
>>
>> I asked you. Was that not enough?
>> If an enlightened master does nothing,
>> ought a bozo do something?
>
>Not necessarily, but you did, being a hypocritical neo-confucian to
>mention it.
Your delusional mind moves.
>> >> >> >> some identify themselves with everything.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Everything is everything?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is that a question?
>> >> >
>> >> >How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
>> >>
>> >> I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
>> >> It may go over your head.
>> >> You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
>> >> You may think it's a misinterpretation
>> >> of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
>> >
>> >I can see how you'll cut&paste, however, first thing first, "what" is
>> >"everything," and how do you account for them?
>>
>> Words can mean anything one chooses.
>> The term "Universe" can mean "everything";
>> the term "world" can mean "everything".
>> Terms are accounted when meaning is transmitted.
>> Terms are unnecessary, at time beyond time.
>
>Yup, "everything is everything."
Words have meaning.
After all is said and done
some think it is as a chirp
while others think grandeur thoughts.
>> >> >> >> some are interested in an easier way
>> >> >> >> of mind\body unism,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> when Zz's wife died
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh?
>> >>
>> >> I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
>> >> When the CT speaks of mourning,
>> >> as it does on more than one occasion,
>> >> what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
>> >
>> >I thought you knew about "true man."
>>
>> Then why did you ask?
>> Your true thinking fuzzy, again?
>
>No, just to answer your question. Don't recall you asked already?
eye recalls.
>just
>look a couple of lines up. Or maybe you just don't know what the
>conversation was.
In your mind, most anything's possible.
>> Not quite sure if I'm really a bozo?
>
>We are quite sure of it,
And yet you persist. Funny, t'hats.
>> Or just wanted to add a stripe to the suit
>> you find suits your shit well, ribbit?
>
>you have doubt that we know you are a bozo?
I have no doubt. Yet you continue to prove it.
Why you do such a thing is your mind moving.
People throw up shit for a variety of reasons.
>> >> Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
>> >
>> >Maybe.
>>
>> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
>
>Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
Some think others think they are their buddha.
>> >> >> >> as an example.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >if you can see.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> being sad,
>> >> >> being glad,
>> >> >> being a bozo,
>> >> >> being an enlightened master
>> >> >
>> >> >To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
>> >>
>> >> your projections are endless.
>> >> thoughts interest your no-mind.
>> >
>> >What else a bozo would think when he runs around all over the grove
>> >and tells everybody that their idea of Tao is not Tao because he knows
>> >"dao ke dao..."?
>>
>> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
>
>Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
Just keep repeating that over and over.
Perhaps it can be your new mantra.
tein
master bozo clown,
what is the meaning
of all this excrement?
yunlong
"'What is the most suffering thing in the world?' the master asked a
monk.
'The hell,' the monk answered.
'No,' said the master.
'What then?' asked the monk.
'Live here as a monk in pursuit [of Tao/Chan] without knowing what's
going on is the most suffering thing,' the master said."
-Dong San Liang Jie-
tein
> going on is the most suffering thing,' the master said."
> -Dong San Liang Jie-
I wonder what he means by 'what's going on'?
I suppose he is frowning on the way a monk would pursue Tao.
Ah those Buddhists, with their traditions and ceremonies,
it is all too elaborate and mindful for me.
I think it is stupid to think you can do this or that to find Tao.
zisixi
I think
they may
be helping
each other
unlearn
one may know
one may not
kamerm
"Jaybuzin0000" <jaybuz...@cs.comm> wrote in message
news:20030329061852...@mb-fr.news.cs.com...
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> ichin wrote:
> >> >jay wrote:
> >> >> ichin wrote:
> >> >> >jay wrote:
> >> >> >> ichin at last, finished his rest:
> >> >> >> >jay had written:
> >> >> >> > ichin had written:
> >> >> >> >we talked you into a bozo, didn't we?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm not sure who your "we" is
> >> >> >> but I've been a bozo from day One.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not sure you even know that,
> >> >>
> >> >> of course you aren't sure.
> >> >>
> >> >> >before some colors are provided for your clown suit.
> >> >>
> >> >> you do what you must do
> >> >> to prove to yourself what you must prove.
> >> >
> >> >That's what I am sure of, and done it.
> >>
> >> and now you are throwing shit
> >> and will do so until it is worthless?
> >
> >I only do the proving part, the worthless shit is where you stand on,
> >forgot how it/you got there?
>
> utility of the useless.
Useless it is.
>
> >> >> >> >some enjoy trivializing,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> obviously.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >and to confuse themselves to confuse others.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> your motives are clear.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >maybe, nonetheless, still play you like buddha played the monkey
> king.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> sew it seams.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >while the catfish wriggles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> as is its nature.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yup, as well, it lacks ability for anything else.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some may think Taoism is about ability.
> >> >> Some may think Taoism is subsumed under Unism.
> >> >> An ability to think is most fun.
> >> >
> >> >Not if the thinking turns into chanting.
> >>
> >> Some hear chanting in the written words of others.
> >> Some think that when birds chirp it means something.
> >> People can mean lots of things when they speak
> >> ming ke ming fei chang ming.
> >> When Chuang Tzu spoke of a bird chirp
> >> some may think he meant something, ore another.
> >
> >Chirping it is.
>
> always was.
Chirping it is.
>
> >> >> >> >No license needed to teach,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> true.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >the question is do you have enough
> >> >> >> >knowledge to cover what you teach.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> lots of quest'ions exist.
> >> >> >> sum may th'ink th'air is only One.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, when One is enlightened, all questions disappeared.
> >> >>
> >> >> Apparently your enlightenment flickers.
> >> >
> >> >Flickering is in your mind.
> >>
> >> sea quest ion be low
> >
> >Yup, "Flickering is in your mind."
>
> flying flags.
"Flickering is in your mind."
>
> >> >> >> >A bozo talks about credibility?
> >> >>
> >> >> As questions appear, enlightenment disappears.
> >> >
> >> >Not necessarily, as true enlightenment encompasses all as well.
> >>
> >> thus, "Yes, when One is enlighted, all questions disappeared"
> >> and, "Not necessarily, as true enlightenment ... "
> >> plus, "A bozo talks about credibility?"
> >> equals, tossing shit until it is worthless.
> >
> >Sounded like you have a severe diarrhea.
>
> your mind moves.
So there's the observation.
>
> >> >> >> a bozo is free to talk about anything.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo.
> >> >>
> >> >> People define words as they choose.
> >> >
> >> >In general, people use words by convention, unless you care to define
> >> >the words you use.
> >>
> >> Some have need of definitions.
> >> Some are confused and ask for directions.
> >
> >The wise,
>
> some simply remain confused and throw shit
> as a howler monkey in a bamboo grove.
Yup, a bozo comes to mind.
>
> >> Some toss shit until it is worthless.
> >> Then they rest. Then they return.
> >> They repeat as kneaded.
> >
> >and the bozo.
>
> and the howler.
And the big mouth.
>
> >> >> A clown is a clown, incredible, as One seams.
> >> >> Some may think they aren't a clown, yet are.
> >> >> Some may frown on a bozo and wear a sad face.
> >> >
> >> >"Yup, however, it is lack of credibility that makes it a bozo."
> >>
> >> You differentiate between clown and bozo?
> >
> >Some clown are noble, some clown just down right bozo.
>
> some monkeys are just monkeys.
Some monkeys think they are human.
>
> >> Some define terms in advance. Some in retreat.
> >> Some nEver dew. Such is teh case.
> >
> >Some talk without knowing the terms they used.
>
> some talk and toss shit.
> confused by the words of others
> they know nothing else to do.
Yup, a bozo comes to mind.
>
> >> >> >> >that's novelty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> true.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Isn't that painting a bozo fun?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> if it wasn't fun, you would do it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends, when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
> >> >> >throw at it, then I won't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some rest, then they return.
> >> >> Some like to throw shit around
> >> >> until their shit is worthless.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, as their characters bankrupted, there's no redemption.
> >>
> >> " when it gets to the point that it ain't worth the shit I
> >> throw at it, then I won't."
> >>
> >> When your shit is worthless, have you redeemed much?
> >
> >I don't talk about shit,
>
> not only do you talk about it,
> you throw it around until it is worthless.
Worthless is what in your mind.
>
> >the shit you think you read is in your mind.
>
> your mind moves.
With the reality.
>
> >When it full of it, you can't tell nothing but shit.
>
> when you find it is worthless, you stop.
Yes.
>
> >> >> >> >As enlightenment must come from within, all true masters must have
> >> >> >> >self-enlightened, and time duration is irrelevant, whoever attains
> it
> >> >> >> >first is called Xian-Sheng.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Some so-called true masters
> >> >> >> are given their title from a respected lineage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then, there's scandal.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have been involved in a scandal?
> >> >> Tell us more! Your lineage lost repute?
> >> >
> >> >Your insinuation is amazing,
> >>
> >> In other words, you never studied with any reputable teachers.
> >
> >Not really, I learned from the best, Tao/nature.
>
> Incredible can mean lots of things to lots of people.
Yup, a bozo comes to mind.
>
> >> You read a few books. Became "enlightened" after having
> >> found gravity.
> >> And now you toss shit until it is worthless.
> >
> >Yup, that's how it works.
>
> when your shit is worthless, you will again rest.
Probably.
>
> >> You actions speak very highly of your self-respect.
> >
> >Naturally.
>
> of course.
>
> >> >> Heavens! You're not making this up, are you?
> >> >
> >> >No, the transmission to six patriarch Hui-Neng is an obvious example.
> >>
> >> Who authorized Hui-Neng? Whom did Hui-Neng authorize?
> >> A transmission is a formal rite of passage. Being informal
> >> can be a dao also.
> >> Dao ke dao. Does that sound like a chant?
> >
> >Yes, "Chanting is citing verses [repeatedly] without knowing the
> >meanings of them."
>
> some see meaning in tossing shit
> until it is worthless. then they rest.
> then they return and do it again.
As bozo mutates, the painting of the bozo may take a while.
>
> >> >> >> Others ordain themselves and call themselves
> >> >> >> most anything they choose.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A part of Chinese Taoism tradition. You thought that CT was ordained?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't recall thinking that.
> >> >> Did Chuang Chou consider himself
> >> >> to be an enlightened master?
> >> >
> >> >Too much work to explain to you what CT really said, really,
> >>
> >> Ah. So you are lazy at Taoism
> >> but have energy for tossing worthless shit.
> >> Perhaps Taoism would refresh you
> >> and your shit wouldn't be as worthless.
> >
> >No, that's because you are such lack of contents/characters, nothing
> >worth something could stand up in you.
>
> yet you make time to throw your shit
> at such a worthless character as me.
> you throw up and you throw up until your shit
> becomes worthless in your mind.
Sanitation is necessary to keep one healthy.
>
> >> >> Where does it say such a thing?
> >> >
> >> >what do you think "true man" is?
> >>
> >> Check google for copies and pastes.
> >> Read the Chuang-tzu and translate it into English.
> >>
> >> >> Why do you say such strange things?
> >> >
> >> >Not a strange thing in Chinese, it's you know too little.
> >>
> >> Some see things in the words of others
> >> but what they see is not what others see.
> >> Dao ke dao, ming ke ming.
> >
> >As said, these words are neither Chinese, nor English,
>
> As said, better not to read them.
Yup, that's what I said.
> Words such as -Yang Shan Chan Shi-
> or Xian-Sheng, neither Chinese, nor English.
They are called transliterate words, for how to get the meaning of
them consult your English grammar.
> Some think they are wise. Their minds move.
Some bozos think they are wiser, yet don't know where their mind is.
>
> >yup, "Some see things in the words of others but what they see is not
> >what others see."
>
> Some hear ming ke ming fei chang ming as a chant.
> To some it is neither Chinese nor English.
They are called transliterate words, for how to get the meaning out of
them consult your English grammar.
> Their mind moves. They throw up shit.
Yup, a bozo comes to mind.
>
> >> >> >> In some respects
> >> >> >> being certain ways is respectful.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yup, credibility reflects honesty.
> >> >>
> >> >> Respect may reflect self-respect.
> >> >
> >> >And irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect.
> >>
> >> Thus your lack.
> >
> >"irrespective reflects the lack of self-respect."
>
> Thus your lack. Neither Chinese nor English.
> Throwing up shit. Monkey mind moves.
Yup, a bozo comes to mind.
>
> >> >> >> >Or it is simply you work hard to be a clown/bozo?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> some professions are respectful.
> >> >> >> some have no use for another's ways.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yup, that's what makes a bozo.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you hold the clown profession in low esteem?
> >> >
> >> >No, but a clown bozo character is [in low esteem].
> >>
> >> Ah. So in your eyes there are levels of clowns
> >> within the profession. Some are deemed higher
> >> and some are lower, in your eyes. This is interesting.
> >
> >There's low because there's high.
>
> mind moves
Actually, it bases on how it feels.
>
> >> >> >> >Still sad, with your ability of wordswords still couldn't talk
> >> >> >> >yourself out of it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> don't be sad my friend.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not for me, thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody said you should be a bozo.
> >> >> You simply are what you are.
> >> >
> >> >You "simply" don't know what "are" is.
> >>
> >> It doesn't make any difference.
> >> You simply are what you are.
> >
> >That's to say you don't know what's in the contents.
>
> That's to say it doesn't matter.
> You simply are what you are.
In the realm of arrogance, ignorance reigns.
>
> >> >> >> it's okay tho when
> >> >> >> some think they catch a fish
> >> >> >> and they enjoy thinking it wiggles.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Some [human] think they are catfish,
> >> >> >and stress their ability in wiggles.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows,
> >> >> aye, eye is a c.a.t.f.i.s.h.. Some think Nature is straight
> >> >> and follow lines of exactitude and order. Others know
> >> >> that wiggles are great fun, and of Teh essence.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, "a complete and total fucking idiot summing hows" it is.
> >>
> >> c.a.t.f.i.s.h.
> >> It's an acronym.
> >> Perhaps, in your eyes, this is even lower than a bozo.
> >> Maybe you can think of the lowest possible thing
> >> and I may say I am that too. Being a rainbow at heart,
> >> there is no colour I am not.
> >
> >Neither white nor black,
>
> Neither Chinese nor English.
> Unable to translate. Better to not read.
Or learn how to read properly,
>
> >> Some will deny aspects of themselves
> >> and contend that such a this\that is not in them.
> >> Others will see how degrees exist, and how all parts
> >> of the body/mind are one, complete, undifferentiable.
> >
> >just a blot of undifferentiable colors.
>
> just throwing up shit.
or remain to be a bozo.
>
> >> >> >> and yet it makes them sad.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is, such a waste of capacity of being a human.
> >> >>
> >> >> You pity clowns?
> >> >
> >> >Not that I care.
> >>
> >> But you hold bozo, the clown, in low esteem
> >
> >They are, in fact.
>
> in your mind.
> throwing up shit.
To match where a bozo stands.
>
> >> and it makes you sad, it's a waste, but you don't care.
> >
> >Why should I care that they are capable yet unable or willing to pull
> >themselves out of the mud and into a better environment?
>
> I have no idea. Why do you care
> enuf to throw up shit until it is worthless?
To save the grove from your verbiage.
>
> >> You have pity and dismiss pity.
> >
> >I don't pity, only state the "state of being," when you feel pity,
> >that's to say, it fits.
>
> That's to say, your shit is less than worthless.
Yup, because some bozo is less than worthless.
>
> >> Flip-flops might
> >> be able to be your act. Your suit suits you.
> >
> >Flip-flopping is your game, what are you now?
>
> Still a bozo. Always was.
> Are you a worthless piece of thrown up shit yet?
>
> >Neo-taoist?
>
> Unreal Taoist.
> How about you. Do you have a title,
> such as Xian-Sheng that is neither Chinese nor English?
> Bestowing a title on ones'elf, w'hat is t'hat.
You think that is neither Chinese nor English,
> You are what you are.
yet you know "You are what you are"? guess that's how a bozo knows.
>
> >No, it
> >sounded more like a neo-confucian. Of course, bozo still fits.
>
> The sounds in your mind are all in your mind.
> Your mind moves. You throw up shit.
When you stuff your mind with these shits, anything you reflect will
be just that, shit.
>
> >> >> >> >Fifty years is a long time to realize a mistake.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> perhaps you enjoy being sad.
> >> >> >> maybe all is not lost for you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It never did, Tao is all encompass.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet being a clown, a bozo, is a waste.
> >> >> Water seeks the lowest. Others seek the highest.
> >> >> Some enjoy being enlightened masters.
> >> >> Others clown a round in a grove.
> >> >
> >> >There's Tao, there's tao, and there's... uhh.. whatever,
> >>
> >> Some may say there is only Chang Tao.
> >> Some may say that Chang Tao exists
> >> but that not all ways are Chang Tao.
> >> The TTC may speak of tao-failure, as it were.
> >> The CT may speak of tao-occlusion, as a figure of speech.
> >
> >Yup, whatever.
>
> Unable to translate, better to not read.
Good translations are out there, whether or not you know how to read
is another question.
>
> >> >> >> >> such is how life can be.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Can be better.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> some enjoy better and better.
> >> >> >> being sad, they may turn to being glad.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Some enjoy being humiliated,
> >> >>
> >> >> some are haughty and think they humiliate others.
> >> >
> >> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
> >>
> >> In your mind, you have made a bozo out of a bozo.
> >> Dressing him up in a clown suit of your taste
> >> you throw shit until it is worthless. And then say:
> >>
> >> >Tao doesn't humiliate, the humiliation humiliates.
> >
> >Yes, in essence, Tao doesn't speak, it reflects like a mirror, the
> >humiliation you see is your own image.
>
> I see no humiliation here.
As I said, as you are shameless, you may not be capable to see it.
> Your mind moves.
With the reality.
>
> >> You think you are Tao?
> >
> >No, nevertheless, I know it well.
>
> And in your knowing, you throw up shit.
> You throw it against a wall to see if it will stick.
It sticks alright.
> Xian-Sheng, neither Chinese nor English.
Once it is defined, it is English.
>
> >> Does humiliation exist as, like, a spirit of possession?
> >
> >Yes,
>
> Perhaps those who throw up shit are possessed.
While a master is free to move, a bozo is possessed by "dao ke dao..."
>
> >> Do you feel as if I am humiliated?
> >
> >What else makes you keep coming back?
>
> Thus your admission. Throwing up shit.
Thus your admission, keep coming back for humiliation.
>
> >You enjoy being call bozo, don't you?
>
> I find no dishonor in the clown profession.
Nothing was said about the clown profession.
> I see no high nor low in being a bozo.
Didn't say you know how to distinguish.
> It's simply what I am at times, spacially h'ears.
Only while hiding behind a screen name.
>
> >> Do you think you have brought humiliation out of me?
> >
> >No, as you are shameless, you may not be capable of feeling it.
>
> Being shameless could be bad in your mind.
> Being unsure is how you are. You may wish to shame
> or humiliate or enlighten yourself or others. Your mind moves.
> You may esteem your shit and think it high.
> You can throw it up or down or all a round.
> When it becomes worthless, you will stop.
> After a rest you will return. Such is how you are.
Self-preservation is nature, and self-mutilation is artifacial.
>
> >> Or have you simply being tossing your shit around
> >> for the pure joy of adding humiliation to humiliation?
> >
> >Your taste for yourself.
>
> Some enjoy throwing up shit.
> After a spell, they tire. They rest. They return
> and throw up more shit. Such is how they are.
Self-preservation is nature, and self-mutilation is artifacial.
>
> >> Your projections are astounding.
> >> Perhaps you were humiliated as a child, eh?
> >
> >Yes and no, life of a war orphan was tough, but I learned not be
> >humiliated by making myself more knowledgeable.
>
> Some may think that knowledge is a way
> to avoid humiliation. Others find other ways.
> Some are shameless and unhumiliated
> by those who throw up shit.
Self-preservation is nature, and self-mutilation is artifacial.
>
> >> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
> >> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism.
> >> >>
> >> >> Uh, hmmm.
> >> >> Would you care to elaborate on this a bit?
> >> >> I mean, I know you project a lot of stuff on me.
> >> >
> >> >That's your own projection, though I may shine you the way a bit,
> >>
> >> You are so kind.
> >> And in so shining your shit, it is of much value to you.
> >
> >Just so we know what is a real bozo looks like.
>
> Just to make sure. And after "we" know
> then "we" rest. Then "we" return. Again and again.
Yup, when the bozo mutates, we need to repaint it again, and again.
>
> >> >> Are you struggling against some authority figure?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not even struggling, what makes you think that there's authority I
> >> >need to struggle with?
> >>
> >> Having a senior moment are you?
> >> Reread your above statement. Wait, I'll copy and paste it.
> >> >> >thinking that they struggle against some
> >> >> >authority figure makes them feel "big," ya, it is a mutated egotism
> >>
> >> Let's turn this around and ask:
> >> "what makes you think that there's authority I
> >> need to struggle with?"
> >
> >Yes, you think I'm the authority you must struggle with,
>
> You are deluded.
I don't shortchange myself.
>
> >so you frame
> >me, flame me, did I tell you don't play with fire that you may get
> >burn yourself?
>
> You say lots of things. You throw up shit.
> Your mind moves. I don't struggle with you.
> I play a round in the grove with you
> until you rest until you return
> and then we play, another day.
>
> >> >> And being an enlightened master makes you feel big?
> >> >
> >> >No, only happy I am.
> >>
> >> Sad at the bozo. Happy you are enlightened.
> >
> >Naturally.
>
> Such is how you are.
> You have fixed terms in your mind.
That's how "fixed" you are,
> To you a bozo makes you sad.
> You project all sorts of things.
I don't just project, but prove as well.
> You throw up shit. Then you rest.
You'll find the proof is in the shit. That's probably why you call it
shit.
Does it matter, "as you keep coming back and bagging for more"?
>
> >I'm just kind of
> >helping out in the grove, guess you enjoy being call bozo.
>
> It doesn't bother me. It's simply who I am, at times.
Not that it bothers anybody, as it appears that every body is enjoying
the show.
> Hats are worn by those who enjoy hats. You may enjoy
> calling me a bozo.
Tao knows I try not to, but you seem so enjoying being call bozo,
guess I have to oblige.
> You might like to prove again
> and again and again and again that I am.
> It may make you sad to think I am.
> Such is how you are.
So it goes.
>
> >> >> > nevertheless, the fact is you are by far posted
> >> >> >the most posts, try to catch up?
> >> >>
> >> >> catch up to what?
> >> >
> >> >Your half-baked Taoism.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you think you know all
> >> that Taoism has ever been or ever will be.
> >
> >No, one main theme of Taoism teaching is "don't chase the ends," it is
> >not every branch of Taoism worth to investigate.
>
> Some chase the end of a bozo.
So to save the grove from its verbiage.
> After a while they tire. They rest. They return.
> The find it worthy to investigate. To prove.
> They throw up shit until it is worthless.
As how a bozo is matched.
>
> >> Such is the view of many who say there is but
> >> a single mountain with many roads to the top.
> >> Some may think\feel that Taoism is worth study
> >> and they dig a round in ancient China, uncovering
> >> silks and pottery, views change.
> >
> >View of no view.
>
> A moving mind.
View of no view.
>
> >> Some however,
> >> prefer not to do their own translations of works
> >> such as the Chuang-tzu because they are lazy.
> >
> >I did, you snipped, now why I bother?
>
> Perhaps you shit has become worthless.
It is always worthless for a worthless.
> Neither Chinese, nor English. Xian-Sheng.
> Better to not read.
Remember that.
>
> >> Some would rather throw shit, until it is worthless.
> >
> >Yup, shit goes downward as well.
>
> Yup, until it is worthless. Then you rest.
> Your shit goes up. Your shit goes down.
> You throw up shit all a round. Then you rest.
Sanitation is an every day affair, as well as daily living.
>
> >> >> >> can you count them all?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >and you even count them?
> >> >>
> >> >> why bother?
> >> >> why do you spend countless hours here?
> >> >
> >> >Interesting question, but you don't see yourself spend countless hours
> >> >here?
> >>
> >> Oh I most certainly do.
> >> As a bozo it is entirely fun.
> >> So why do you spend lots of hours
> >> throwing your shit until it is worthless.
> >
> >"My shop has everything. You want gold, I sell gold; you want shit, I
> >sell that too."--Yang Shan Chan Shi--
>
> -Yang Shan Chan Shi- neither Chinese nor English.
That's a Chan master's title.
>
> >> Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
> >
> >No, I'm your buddha.
>
> You are deluded.
Still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
>
> >> >> >> >> some may have better things to do
> >> >> >> >> but remain here none-the-less.
> >> >> >> >> funny, t'hats.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Maybe they enjoy the show of "the making of a bozo," eh?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> probably. hopefully.
> >> >> >> but it may make them sad.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Only human.
> >> >>
> >> >> such is life.
> >> >
> >> >Some life is good, and some life just pathetic.
> >>
> >> Some see bozo, the clown, as pathos.
> >> They are sad, they think it's a waste,
> >> and they say they don't care but throw shit
> >> until they feel it is worthless. Some value their shit
> >> and will throw it at a bozo. Others smoke shit.
> >> Some shit is better than others.
> >
> >Welcome to the real world.
>
> Your mind moves.
Yup, with the reality.
>
> >> >> >> >> some dismiss the actions of others.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Some dismiss themselves.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> they may rest.
> >> >> >> they may return.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Or denying their own existence.
> >> >>
> >> >> You deny your own existence?
> >> >
> >> >Don't tell me you're going to dismiss yourself again!
> >>
> >> I begin with dismissing myself.
> >
> >Yup, melting like spineless.
>
> In your mind.
Archived in google as well.
>
> >> You dismiss yourself after your find your shit
> >> is no longer worth anything. How much is it worth today?
> >
> >Nothing for worthless.
>
> You are approaching your rest.
> Always play the rests.
Yup, we are getting there.
>
> >> Will you sell it on the stock market?
> >
> >And you think people even buy this shit?
>
> Apparently you do. Your mind moves.
Only a bozo take no for yes.
>
> >> >> Some identify with everything.
> >> >> Some identify with nothing.
> >> >> A way of affirmation exists.
> >> >> A way of negation exists.
> >> >> Many ways exist.
> >> >
> >> >Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao.
> >>
> >> So there is a way, and there is Way.
> >> Just being tao doesn't make it Tao/Dao, eh?
> >
> >Yup, I said that.
>
> Neither Chinese nor English.
> Better to not read.
"What" is "Neither Chinese nor English. Better to not read"? or you
find such meaningful words fancy?
>
> >> >> Dao ke dao.
> >> >> Does that sound like a chant to you?
> >> >
> >> >Yes.
> >>
> >> How about:
> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
> >> How would you translate that English
> >> into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
> >
> >Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
>
> Neither Chinese nor English
Was that your request? "How would you translate that English into
pinyin or Wade-Giles? –tia"
> what do you call it? Is it refreshing to you?
> Perhaps a new term: Water-words.
The bozo mind of yours is pathetic.
>
> >> >> >> >"better not to read them," instead, check your conscious.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> better is a tao.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Trivial.
> >> >>
> >> >> your words my friend.
> >> >
> >> >Overlook your words again?
> >>
> >> Better not to read them?
> >
> >Dare not to read your own words?
>
> Some dare others to do things.
> Some see some things as better than others.
> Some see all things the same.
Some dare not to read their own words.
>
> >> Please, translate a bit of Chinese into English
> >> or English into Chinese. Is it trivial, to you?
> >
> >Guess we haven't seen all of you.
>
> Being deluded, guess you and your we
> may or may not have seen most anything.
You may not, but I do.
>
> >> >> >> >Some attain Tao, and some go astray.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> some go for a rest and return today.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Daily living.
> >> >>
> >> >> n'ice two-play a round, width wu
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> sometimes Ichin and I agree.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Uhh... guess you did learn something, fancy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> sometimes we agree to disagree.
> >> >> >> in such a case, do we agree or disagree?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on how you agree or disagree.
> >> >> >Some disagree gracefully, some bankrupt their characters to do it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are heading into Teh-red?
> >> >
> >> >Question?
> >>
> >> Is your shit worth anything?
> >
> >Yes,
>
> Until it isn't.
when it is touched by a bankrupted character.
>
> >my Tao makes what you call "master,"
>
> An interesting choice of words.
Your words.
>
> >your dao makes what you call
> >"bozo," the value is obvious.
>
> Your mind moves.
Yup, with the reality.
>
> >> At what point will your shit become worthless?
> >
> >When a worthless person receives it.
>
> Curious. First you find a worthless person.
Not really, most the time they find me, deluded thinking their
nothingness worth something, ranting without substance, when reality
hits home then they go whining about being humiliated with their
self-inflicted humiliation, and turn everything they touch into shit,
then diarrhea is on, shitting it is.
> Then you throw up shit until they receive it.
> Then your shit becomes worthless.
Where it finds its match.
> A most interesting and curious Tao you have.
> -Yang Shan Chan Shi- Neither Chinese nor English.
Learn how to consult your English grammar.
>
> >> >> >> >> some say that the sage does not contend,
> >> >> >> >> does not argue,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >They don't argue, but they do clarify,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> some think they are fancy with words.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yup, wordswords comes to mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> sum th'inks eye is clever.
> >> >> such is th'air project'ion.
> >> >
> >> >So you don't think your are fancy with words?
> >>
> >> Some see my nature as fancy.
> >> Some see my words as clever.
> >> Eye seas m'aye words as dancy
> >> tripping One in two m'any things.
> >
> >"Yup, wordswords comes to mind." Proven fact is no projection.
>
> Throwing up shit is no delusion.
> Thinking that others see you as an authority figure
> against whom to struggle, or that they see you as their buddha
> is the Tao of many whose shit flows thru here.
> They are called delusional.
A reflection of a delusion.
>
> >> >> >> >and do what they say.
>
> >> >> >> >Some think they can cover up their lack of integrity by talking
> about
> >> >> >> >little children starve...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> now that you mention it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For your short memory.
> >> >>
> >> >> you still do nothing?
> >> >> and you manage to live, at length, w\yers'elf!
> >> >
> >> >I have done my share to point it out, it was an unnecessary concern
> >> >and what a hypocritical neo-confucian idea it was, and as you brought
> >> >up the subject, what did you do about it?
> >>
> >> I asked you. Was that not enough?
> >> If an enlightened master does nothing,
> >> ought a bozo do something?
> >
> >Not necessarily, but you did, being a hypocritical neo-confucian to
> >mention it.
>
> Your delusional mind moves.
A reflection of a delusion.
>
> >> >> >> >> some identify themselves with everything.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Everything is everything?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is that a question?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How does one "identify themselves with everything"?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll try and grep a Zz quote fur ya.
> >> >> It may go over your head.
> >> >> You may think I'm trying to confuse you.
> >> >> You may think it's a misinterpretation
> >> >> of a bad translation. Yetti, eye sh'all try.
> >> >
> >> >I can see how you'll cut&paste, however, first thing first, "what" is
> >> >"everything," and how do you account for them?
> >>
> >> Words can mean anything one chooses.
> >> The term "Universe" can mean "everything";
> >> the term "world" can mean "everything".
> >> Terms are accounted when meaning is transmitted.
> >> Terms are unnecessary, at time beyond time.
> >
> >Yup, "everything is everything."
>
> Words have meaning.
> After all is said and done
> some think it is as a chirp
> while others think grandeur thoughts.
Such as, "some identify themselves with everything."
>
> >> >> >> >> some are interested in an easier way
> >> >> >> >> of mind\body unism,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >some just find an easy way out by talking,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> when Zz's wife died
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh?
> >> >>
> >> >> I figured that wood p'u grab ya.
> >> >> When the CT speaks of mourning,
> >> >> as it does on more than one occasion,
> >> >> what has it to do with mind\body Unism?
> >> >
> >> >I thought you knew about "true man."
> >>
> >> Then why did you ask?
> >> Your true thinking fuzzy, again?
> >
> >No, just to answer your question. Don't recall you asked already?
>
> eye recalls.
So it is your "thinking fuzzy, again."
>
> >just
> >look a couple of lines up. Or maybe you just don't know what the
> >conversation was.
>
> In your mind, most anything's possible.
No, a bozo cannot learn.
>
> >> Not quite sure if I'm really a bozo?
> >
> >We are quite sure of it,
>
> And yet you persist. Funny, t'hats.
It is not easy to paint a bozo that mutates.
>
> >> Or just wanted to add a stripe to the suit
> >> you find suits your shit well, ribbit?
> >
> >you have doubt that we know you are a bozo?
>
> I have no doubt. Yet you continue to prove it.
As you continue to pretend that we don't know.
> Why you do such a thing is your mind moving.
> People throw up shit for a variety of reasons.
Some mind just run around.
>
> >> >> Is th'air m'ore than One form of Unism, iyo?
> >> >
> >> >Maybe.
> >>
> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
> >
> >Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
>
> Some think others think they are their buddha.
Yup, we had a round, in fact, several rounds.
>
> >> >> >> >> as an example.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >if you can see.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> being sad,
> >> >> >> being glad,
> >> >> >> being a bozo,
> >> >> >> being an enlightened master
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To get ahead of sages by way of being a bozo? interesting thought.
> >> >>
> >> >> your projections are endless.
> >> >> thoughts interest your no-mind.
> >> >
> >> >What else a bozo would think when he runs around all over the grove
> >> >and tells everybody that their idea of Tao is not Tao because he knows
> >> >"dao ke dao..."?
> >>
> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
> >
> >Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
>
> Just keep repeating that over and over.
> Perhaps it can be your new mantra.
I don't chant like you, just state the matter of fact.
:)
IS
>
> >:)
> >IS
> >
> >>
> >> >:)
> >> >IS
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >:)
> >> >> >IS
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > :)
> >> >> >> >IS
Jaybuzin0000
utility of uselessness.
under teh really really big
topspinning w'hen a circus
is in t'own, One plays
on wordswords.
Jaybuzin0000
>gentlemen, might you "take this outside"?
in teh
per: suit of worthless,
is th'air an outside
fur One, two-takes?
from two, three.
and we dew has accountants!
-in the grove
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
[...s, by request]
>> Some hear ming ke ming fei chang ming as a chant.
>> To some it is neither Chinese nor English.
>
>They are called transliterate words, for how to get the meaning out of
>them consult your English grammar.
I'll take your word for it.
Not that I agree, but it matters not to me.
My impression was that a transliteration is something else.
Pinyin or Wade-Giles is usually called a Romanization.
We can call it as you wish. And therein rests communication.
>> >There's low because there's high.
>>
>> mind moves
>
>Actually, it bases on how it feels.
words point. directions indicate.
>>Why do you care
>> enuf to throw up shit until it is worthless?
>
>To save the grove from your verbiage.
funny, t'hats.
>when the bozo mutates, we need to repaint it again, and again.
I love this guy.
>> >Yes, you think I'm the authority you must struggle with,
>>
>> You are deluded.
>
>I don't shortchange myself.
>> You are approaching your rest.
>> Always play the rests.
>
>Yup, we are getting there.
by special request.
>> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
>> >> How would you translate that English
>> >> into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
>> >
>> >Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
>>
>> Neither Chinese nor English
>
>Was that your request?
it was.
How would you compare that with
dao ke dao fei chang dao? -tia.
>It is not easy to paint a bozo that mutates.
Some persist, none-the-less.
>> >> Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
>> >
>> >No, I'm your buddha.
>>
>> You are deluded.
>
>Still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
At least you are aware of, and admit, your delusions.
>> Some think others think they are their buddha.
>
>Yup,
>> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
>> >
>> >Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
>>
>> Just keep repeating that over and over.
>> Perhaps it can be your new mantra.
>
>I don't chant like you, just state the matter of fact.
It is not a fact,
yet can be an axiom, if you wish.
>:)
>IS
potts
"tein" <h@i.n> wrote in message
news:zGfha.8013$D24.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
MDHJWH
There is nothing to teach
There are no masters
Ayn Marx
potts
"MDHJWH" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:808df0f8.03032...@posting.google.com...
That is another possibility Rgds Ken
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> [...s, by request]
>
> >> Some hear ming ke ming fei chang ming as a chant.
> >> To some it is neither Chinese nor English.
> >
> >They are called transliterate words, for how to get the meaning out of
> >them consult your English grammar.
>
> I'll take your word for it.
> Not that I agree, but it matters not to me.
> My impression was that a transliteration is something else.
> Pinyin or Wade-Giles is usually called a Romanization.
> We can call it as you wish. And therein rests communication.
Romanization it is, it basically indicates how the word should be
pronounced approximately, it is neither a spelling nor the meaning of
the Chinese character. The meaning of the word still needs to be
defined in English terms to have an English meaning,
>
> >> >There's low because there's high.
> >>
> >> mind moves
> >
> >Actually, it bases on how it feels.
>
> words point. directions indicate.
and the equivalent meanings of the words are communicated through the
"feeling" of the mind.
>
> >>Why do you care
> >> enuf to throw up shit until it is worthless?
> >
> >To save the grove from your verbiage.
>
> funny, t'hats.
>
> >when the bozo mutates, we need to repaint it again, and again.
>
> I love this guy.
>
> >> >Yes, you think I'm the authority you must struggle with,
> >>
> >> You are deluded.
> >
> >I don't shortchange myself.
>
> >> You are approaching your rest.
> >> Always play the rests.
> >
> >Yup, we are getting there.
>
> by special request.
>
> >> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao"?
> >> >> How would you translate that English
> >> >> into pinyin or Wade-Giles? -tia
> >> >
> >> >Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
> >>
> >> Neither Chinese nor English
> >
> >Was that your request?
>
> it was.
>
> How would you compare that with
> dao ke dao fei chang dao? -tia.
In classic Chinese speech pattern of the above statement really means
that a sage does not use much words to explain Tao, but put it in
action to express it; Zhi Xing He Yi, "words and actions are always in
accord," is the implied environment.
>
> >It is not easy to paint a bozo that mutates.
>
> Some persist, none-the-less.
>
> >> >> Are you a howler monkey, in the grove?
> >> >
> >> >No, I'm your buddha.
> >>
> >> You are deluded.
> >
> >Still play you like buddha played the monkey king.
>
> At least you are aware of, and admit, your delusions.
Not really, just the metaphor holds.
>
> >> Some think others think they are their buddha.
> >
> >Yup,
>
> >> >> "Just being a way doesn't make it Tao/Dao."
> >> >
> >> >Just copycatting mine words will not make you knowledgeable of it.
> >>
> >> Just keep repeating that over and over.
> >> Perhaps it can be your new mantra.
> >
> >I don't chant like you, just state the matter of fact.
>
> It is not a fact,
> yet can be an axiom, if you wish.
Dao ke dao fei chang dao also implies [by its logic] there's no axiom
is valid.
:)
IS
>
> >:)
> >IS
Jaybuzin0000
>mdj wrote:
>>ken wrote:
>> > Just a master teaching?
>> There is nothing to teach
>> There are no masters
>That is another possibility
Crazy people are the must fun.
If they aren't completely nuts, they make some sense.
Being off th'airockers, they are irrational enuf
that the sense made is neither here nor there.
It's fun, for me, to try and make sense out of nonsense
and vice-versa, in a bamboo grove.
-passinging bottomless
{8-])))
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
>>ichin wrote:
>Romanization it is, it basically indicates how the word should be
>pronounced approximately, it is neither a spelling
A spelling could be said to be impossible.
Or, it is the spelling of the sound, using English characters.
When a squiggle appears to a reader to be a 'letter'
and the squiggles are lumped together to form a 'word'
this is called a 'spelling'. Letters began as pictures.
Many ways can be used to speak
and mean things, on average, at times.
>nor the meaning of the Chinese character.
A bunch markings mean nothing.
Meaning is attributed for a reason.
>The meaning of the word still needs to be
>defined in English terms to have an English meaning,
And not simply the word.
Transliterations give a literal translation
of the meaning of the word but no context.
Context is provided by the translator
in which is always embedded an interpretation.
>> words point. directions indicate.
>
>and the equivalent meanings of the words are communicated through the
>"feeling" of the mind.
Translations differ.
Minds feel in different ways.
If there was a single way to interpret,
e.g. the TTC, there would be one translation.
>> >> >Xiao Tao Fei Da Tao.
>> How would you compare that with
>> dao ke dao fei chang dao? -tia.
>
>In classic Chinese speech pattern of the above statement really means
When a person says, "really"
this suggests a single one and true right way.
If the statement really did mean only one thing
it suggests all other translators are, well, wrong.
>that a sage does not use much words to explain Tao, but put it in
>action to express it; Zhi Xing He Yi, "words and actions are always in
>accord," is the implied environment.
This brings up lots of interesting corollaries.
In keeping a post on the short side, I'd like to explore
just one or two aspects.
In your version of the TTC, have you included
such a commentary? This is the first time I've seen such
a way of looking at it. Perhaps yours is really the right way
and all other interpretations are wrong.
Words and actions may be in accord
in the mind of an individual speaking and acting.
Looking on, from the outside, other individuals may
conclude that the sayer\actor is most anything.
Onlookers may conclude the sayer\actor is
a sage, a bozo, a master, or an idiot.
>> >It is not easy to paint a bozo that mutates.
>>
>> Some persist, none-the-less.
Some people joke a round.
Some are actually very serious
and completely honest in their saying\acting.
Perhaps the TTC suggests not to joke
so as to match actions with words.
Do you think this is true?
>> >> >I'm your buddha.
>> >>
>> >> You are deluded.
>> >
>> >Still
>> At least you are aware of, and admit, your delusions.
>
>Not really, just the metaphor holds.
So, you don't really think you are my buddha?
Thus, your saying\acting was not in accord.
Of course, since you aren't a sage, that's okay.
You were not sincere, nor clear, or perhaps you
are in denial and have flip\flopped. Is there
another possibity? Is a joke a kind of lie?
>> >> Some think others think they are their buddha.
>> >
>> >Yup,
Twice admitting a thing may point to a mind-feeling
that a person had when making a statement.
Perhaps you didn't think that I thought you are
what you said you thought I thought you are.
Mebbe too many words.
>Dao ke dao fei chang dao
>also implies [by its logic] there's no axiom is valid.
Some may agree that such a saying
could be called an axiom-of-no-axiom.
Some have seen this all along.
>Zhi Xing He Yi
This saying could be said to be an axiom
of Ichin's Taoism. If the Lao-tzu meant to say that
then it is curious why it would say something else.
>Dao ke dao fei chang dao
>also implies [by its logic] there's no axiom is valid.
Is Zhi Xing He Yi really what dao ke dao fei chang dao means?
Perhaps I misinterpret.
-being a bozo
{8-])))
> :)
>IS
tein
i agree.
everything is complete.
here we are, just look.
no one is master over another.
anything that can be taught
is immediately available.
the ttc is not a teaching.
it is the song of someone's truth,
a great silence expounded.
potts
"Jaybuzin0000" <jaybuz...@cs.comm> wrote in message
You gotta Way with words? Rgds Ken
> -passinging bottomless
> {8-])))
potts
"tein" <h@i.n> wrote in message