XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname wrote:   
   >Ummmmmmm nottony wrote:   
   >> noname wrote:   
   >>> Ummmmmmm nottony wrote:   
   >>>> noname wrote:   
   >>>>> Ummmmmmm tony wrote:   
   >>>>>> liaM wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   ... excisions not included ...   
      
   >>>>>>>> Really, really, wanting something - and knowing that it's possible -   
   >>>>>>>> means you don't give up until you've found it.   
   >>>>>>>> If we have only one life - surely we have to aim for the highest?   
   >>>>>>>> Otherwise we let ourselves down.   
      
   If the best or highest are akin to water,   
   then flowing down may be how to let one's self go   
   as far as the TTC, in chapter 8, goes.   
      
   And yet, in cross-posts, maybe Taoism isn't the topic.   
   And pointing to some Taoist text is a no-no, for sum.   
      
   And yet, why post to a Taoist group,   
   if one does not care to see Taoist material presented,   
   discussed, nor mentioned, mites be a wonder.   
      
   >>> ... there's nothing I'm aware of that makes it impossible for a "recipe"   
   to be used if   
   >>> the terminology is simple enough and common enough that the reader actually   
   >>> understands what was written.  ...   
      
   Redding comprehend shuns matter.   
      
   >Anybody can hand around recipes.   
      
   Not all ovens are plugged in.   
   Some might not be plumbed, nor any fuel available.   
      
   >> Consider the Buddha as a compassionate person (Living Master) who met   
   >> someone dying of thirst in the desert. That person *might*, if he was   
   >> severely conditioned, have said "Please help me - I need a beer/cup of   
   >> tea/fanta/ cappucino . . . "   
   >>   
   >> Gautama said "You need water" (this his recipe for curing extreme thirst)   
   >> Then he hands him a jug of water. (transmits enlightenment).   
   >> The jug happens to be blue pottery with a yellow incised pattern of   
   >> sunflowers.   
      
   People tend not to be in dire need of knowing   
   what is defined as, enlightenment, below.   
      
   The picture painted on a straw-jug   
   does not hold water.   
      
   The light inside of people, most normal people, burns bright.   
   It is not dimmed by the world. Most people love life.   
   They don't have any major problem with it.   
   And they tend to make more life.   
   Naturally. Ziran. Tzu-jan.   
      
   People who seek enlightenment have lost their Way.   
   They are the few, as compared to the many who are okay.   
      
   Though many do complain about the world, they don't seek   
   to escape nor to transcend world-processes nor to evolve out   
   of being in the world, to reach some higher woo-woo high.   
      
   Eclectics and syncretists may. And many of those do.   
   They see similarities among all the so-called paths.   
   They might even conclude they're all the same.   
   That there is one Path. And spread their   
   own brand of woo in the world.   
      
   Taoism might call Tao, Wu.   
   Especially Neo-Taoism.   
      
   >> For the next three thousand years scholars debate the various ways in   
   >> which a sage might say "You need water" How can the recipe be   
   >> interpreted? What sort of water was involved. Or the appropriate way to   
   >> ask a sage for a beer or a coffee.   
      
   Those folks have time to spare. They aren't in dire need.   
      
   >> They also debate whether a yellow jug with a pattern of bluebells   
   >> might've worked as well, or better. Or whether the water would've cured   
   >> thirst if it had been in a tin mug, or a glass jar.   
   >>   
   >> No-one has the water.   
      
   Tao is available at all times.   
   Birds fly. Fish swim. People are as well.   
      
   Obscure references may mean something. Or not.   
      
   >> Only a living Master can provide that.   
      
   Tao cannot be given, so it may be said.   
   Yet Tao may be obtained, such has been written.   
      
   Cook Ting got it. The bugcatcher got it. The swimmer,   
   the woodsman, the wheelwright, none of them needed   
   some living Master to provide it to them.   
      
   The swimmer grew up around water.   
      
   I don't see Taoism as saying,   
   "Only a living Master can provide that."   
      
   Though there are a few Masters in Taoist texts.   
      
   >> How it is   
   >> delivered is entirely up to him/her. No recipes are required.   
   >> It's as simple as "You need water?" "I have water"   
      
   The living Master freely dispenses.   
   Few may be able to receive the Way it is, at a given time.   
      
   If it worked for all who thirst, none would thirst.   
   And they would not thirst for more.   
      
   It would be a quick-fix. Over and done with.   
      
   >Who knows, maybe you have a blue jug with yellow flowers.   
      
   Water is free at streams near to all.   
   It doesn't necessarily require someone to have a glass   
   in order for someone else to drink one's fill.   
      
   Yet some, for whatever factors are involved, need glasses.   
   And they need the hands of a living Master to hand it to them.   
      
   Then they may see, and drink, and be satisfied.   
   Perhaps one glass does it for them.   
      
   Yet others are more thirsty. Or, maybe the water was   
   not enough proof in its spirit-content. Eighty-six percent   
   might be more than 3.5 or 6. Yet the pure stuff might kill   
   if a whole glass was consumed all at once. Cud be.   
      
   >>>> A secret which is transmitted from one living human heart to another can't   
   >>>> survive being modulated into written words or dead formulae.   
      
   Esoteric transmissions survive easily enough.   
   Those who have ears, hear them, naturally.   
      
   >>>>> ... what "Heaven" means is something an individual might profit from   
   >>>>> considering.  ...   
      
   Semantics loves two play.   
      
   >>>> But the space of light & peace inside of me - that's a different story.   
   >>>> I'm rather fond of going there.   
      
   That can be exactly what the word, Heaven, means,   
   if that's what the word means, and one uses it as such.   
      
   >>> That kind of thing, plus the human-heart thing, gacks me to perceive you as   
   >>> one of those touchy-feely-know-nothings who talk about Universal Love and   
   >>> other angelic dogshit; pardon my bluntesty, I'm easily confused.   
   >>   
   >> A matter of taste. ...   
      
   Words, as Tang likes to reiterate, are mere.   
   Except, obviously, they aren't mere.   
      
   A word, Heaven, or a phrase, light & peace, gaks.   
      
   A matter of semantics.   
      
   If words were mere-words, there'd be no gakking.   
      
   Nor would there be any grokking.   
      
   Words work. But not always.   
   Words might very well enlighten very well. But not always.   
      
   >>>>> Sometimes we think we need to disclaim all desire, rather than just   
   >>>>> attachment to desire, and in those places it might be quite sufficient to   
   >>>>> suffer-less as a long-term-prelude to enjoying-more.  Freedom from desire   
   >>>>> doesn't mean you don't desire, it just means you've learned to listen   
   >>>>> instead of just talk.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> But they all lead you out, away from your essential self, not in   
   towards it.   
   >>>>>> There may be a path that leads inwards, towards your true being.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If there was no true path, nobody would have been able to find it.   
      
   There are as many true paths as there are those who walk them.   
   To suppose there is only one, or they are all the same,   
   can be what one supposes at times.   
      
   >>>>> Occasionally some at least seem to have found it.  From that one might   
   >>>>> conclude that it exists.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)