XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname wrote:   
   > Tang wrote:   
   >>   
   >> The DDJ is written for rulers and would-be   
   >> rulers.   
   >   
   >Not the way I read it.  I read it to be highly esoteric, with very subtle   
   >differentiations that force the gross to one set of conclusions and lead   
   >the more subtle to a different set of conclusions.  The mundane reader will   
   >see it as written for rulers and would-be rulers.  Seeing the other ground,   
   >there is nothing to see because everything is background, and its   
   >usefulness to the genuine seeker of the truth about Reality becomes   
   >visible.   
      
   Sometimes I see would-be or young rulers   
   as learning to be a measure of their own lives.   
      
   If not the definite article, the.   
      
   >> To exclude some spheres a priori   
   >> from the reach of the sage is to limit his   
   >> freedom, a very anti-Daoist thingie.   
   >   
   >The sage is no more nor less limited than anyone else; the difference is   
   >that he knows it and takes it seriously.   
      
   As does she. Unless she is at play.   
      
   Then, it's a bit of a different story-line.   
      
   Maybe Hillary is a hilarious sage or Sage,   
   in her heart of hearts and knows a thing or three.   
      
   Bill said she is Way smarter than him.   
   And that's saying sum Ting.   
      
   Cuz he was, what was it, a Roads dude.   
      
   - ming ke ming, fei chang ming -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)