XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.religion.jain   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   David wrote:   
   > noname wrote:   
   >> David Dalton wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > The problem with most so-called fundamentalists is that   
   >> > they follow minor messages that conflict with their   
   >> > main messages.   
      
   As seen by those who disagree.   
      
   Fundamentalists see their main messages   
   and all their minor messages without conflict.   
   They are able to rationalize inerrancy into equations.   
      
   >> Another problem with them is that they follow their main messages, to   
   >> the letter, however the letters can be twisted to accomodate their   
   >> desires.   
      
   A whole book has a context.   
   A set of books has a context.   
      
   Taking any word, sentence or group   
   of words or sentences out of the whole   
   book or set of books out of that context   
   to apply to some situation is to take it   
   or them out of context.   
      
   It is difficult not to.   
   Yet easy to quibble about.   
      
   >> > One of my messages on my Salmon on the Thorns web page is:   
   >> >   
   >> > "The fundamental is to love; however this can not be always   
   >> > achieved and so one must at least strive to love. Messages   
   >> > that conflict with that sentence must be discarded or edited   
   >> > to no longer conflict."   
   >>   
   >> No cigar, dude; striving might work okay if you're rowing a boat or   
   >> picking up a log, but when it comes to the "spiritual", striving is a   
   >> definite Catch-22.   
   >   
   >Would you prefer it be all or nothing then, and mostly   
   >end up as nothing?   
      
   In terms of Abrahamic religions,   
   the first commandment applies. Love God.   
   With all one's mind, heart, might.   
      
   In terms of Taoism, left alone, people will   
   return to what is natural for them. And to love   
   is a very natural activity for people.   
      
   >  And for example an Inuit hunter   
   >in killing a seal isn't loving that seal but can   
   >strive to love that seal and treat the seal as humanely   
   >as possible.   
      
   A problem with rules, given a Taoist view,   
   is that they create internal conflict.   
      
   To have a rule, e.g. love or strive to love,   
   puts one in a bind if one does not feel it.   
      
   Taoist texts suggest forgetting about rules,   
   doing away with wisdom and knowing,   
   and the people will return to love.   
      
   >> > Two other related messages on that web page are:   
   >> >   
   >> > "Don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving,   
   >>   
   >> I wonder if Cook Ting loved his oxen.   
      
   The text says Cook Ting loved Tao.   
   All else flowed from that. His blade, sharp.   
   Never needed to be made sharp.   
   Was simply always sharp.   
   Cuz he loved Tao.   
      
   Jesus said to love God and neighbor   
   and everything else flows from that   
   accordion to scraps of the script.   
      
   Plays on words vary.   
      
   >> I wonder if Josef Menegle (the   
   >> "Angel of Death") loved his patients.  Watch out for those loving folks   
   >> who believe they should cook you and eat you.   
   >   
   >Obviously they aren't loving.   Your definition of loving   
   >appears to be skewed, so perhaps you are a psychopath?   
      
   He does not appear to exhibit much joy.   
   He does appear to have tribbles with Desire.   
      
   His focus tends to be on Desire.   
   It's possible that was a great problem for him.   
   It may have induced trauma from which he has   
   yet to fully recover. Hence, that word sticks.   
      
   To him, Desire sticks out like a sore thumb   
   from the Taoist and Buddhist scraps of script.   
      
   Such is his role, in the Great Play on Words.   
      
   >> > or try to be as much as possible within constraints of life."   
   >> >   
   >> > and   
   >> >   
   >> > "Loving behaviour should be both within our species (including   
   >> > to other nationalities, races, spiritual paths, orientations,   
   >> > genders, ages, transgendered status, mental health diagnoses,   
   >> > physical illness diagnoses, and physical disability   
   >> > classificatons, and with no instigation of war) and, though   
   >> > we would give our own species a `human family' edge, to   
   >> > members of other species and to each species as a unit and   
   >> > to the environment we are part of."   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> Sounds like a well-intended crock to me, fwiw.   
   >   
   >It is necessary to spell out who we should be loving   
   >towards since Jesus didn't do so   
      
   Jesus said to love each other, and neighbors.   
   And one's enemies. Children are taken for granted.   
      
   >and many Christians   
   >are loving only towards people like themselves, if that.   
   >   
   >And sometimes a well-intended crock provides good fertilizer.   
      
   They cook food slowly by intention.   
      
   With Taoism, intent is called wei. Active action.   
      
   Wu-wei is the ideal. Unintentional, spontaneous,   
   unpremeditated, without-action.   
   Allowing mud to settle.   
      
   Doing nothing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)