XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> One might wonder why such a true self would post here,   
   >>>> if all true selves are perfect, unsulliable, full of light, free, etc.   
   >>>> if there would be any point, on earth, or elsewhere.   
   >>>   
   >>> You misunderstand me.   
   >>   
   >> I tend to misunderstand most everyone in ways.   
   >>   
   >>> I'm not pretending to be any of those things.   
   >>   
   >> I wonder at times about Tang, pretending not to be   
   >> what he claims that is he isn't in his disclaimers.   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps you are both the same. And everything is the same.   
   >> Or similar if not the same. In some different ways.   
   >   
   >You love to hide in a mist of word-play and puns. Sometimes it works,   
   >mostly it doesn't.   
      
   I've noticed that, it doesn't, lots of times, in communication.   
      
   Usually that's when someone else's mind is already made up.   
   In his or her own mind, he or she thinks in his/her own Way.   
      
   It works especially bad when, say, walking into a bar.   
      
   Normally, one would assume the bar is visible.   
   And people wouldn't bang their heads on it.   
      
   But mostly I write just to write. I'm a happy camper.   
   I ignore what doesn't work, and all bad news, etc.   
      
   Which reminds me, it's time to make coffee.   
   Please excuse any typographical errors.   
   I've only reread this, this far.   
      
   >If we're to understand each other, let's speak clearly and simply.   
   >As Noah said, very wisely I thought "Post humble words, quiet words,   
   >without intent."   
   >   
   >And let Tang speak for himself. He's not being attacked, so he doesn't   
   >need defending.   
      
   Tang can speak all he wants to. Or be silent, if he cares to.   
      
   I don't care either way, and I write as I write, such as eye dew.   
      
   You can post what you think are humble words, and be happy.   
      
   You might think you have no intent. And really believe that.   
   Except, it appears to me, as if you do intend to post your words.   
   And you don't seem at all humble, but, rather arrogant.   
      
   Maybe that's just my own reflection I see in you   
   as I project my own super-huge ego on to words you write.   
      
   You seem to want other people to be happy. To see things   
   as you see things. To see how you point and to what.   
      
   And you assume others don't. That is presumptuous, of you.   
      
   >>> What i call "the true self" is not a vesture, or set of ceremonial   
   >>> robes, for the ego to strut around in.   
   >>>   
   >>> The way some people pretend to be Taoists, or Zennists, or polymath   
   >>> scholars.   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps they are not pretending.   
   >> Maybe their true selves are expressing themselves.   
   >>   
   >> But, one sees them thru a filter.   
   >> A mirror of sorts. Maybe.   
   >>   
   >>> It's not a description of an ideal person, or a saint or a sage.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's a Presence to be enjoyed, wondered at, delighted in.   
   >>> The Presence in the Present.   
   >>   
   >> Some true selves play for keeps. Very serious. Involved. Totally.   
   >>   
   >>> It doesn't act.   
   >>   
   >> Then it can't play.   
   >   
   >Like a cool lake on a hot day, it invites us to play in it. Or as a   
   >breeze invites a child to launch a kite.   
      
   Or like a very dramatic, tragic, horrible play. One that involves   
   those who go to the show and don't see things your way.   
      
   >> Unless, if it does, wu-wei.   
   >>   
   >>> It doesn't go anywhere. It's the still point of the   
   >>> turning world.It can be heard, seen, tasted, felt.   
   >>> It's in every human being.   
   >>   
   >> Then it's different from every human being.   
   >> Being different, no one is one's true self.   
   >   
   >It is different from everything you might think or imagine. Definitions   
   >fall off it like water from a duck's back.   
   >But your logic is false. Being unique, everyone is one's true self -   
   >unless one is projecting a false image and calling it "Me"   
      
   Then, to say everyone has a true self   
   might be to divide what is undivided to begin with.   
      
   A way in which noname phrased it, that one is born, pure, and true   
   but that one's true nature gets all covered over, indoctrinated,   
   by the culture in which one grows.   
      
   Just as you said, to peel away the layers, can be to rediscover it.   
      
   And just as someone else said, with an onion, there is no middle.   
      
   And as yet another said, there's always a middle,   
   no matter if there's nothing in the center.   
      
   But if you presume no one gets it, except you, then   
   that is your presumption that you bring with you.   
      
   >That's why the Master holds up a mirror for us to look into - so we can   
   >see past the lies we've been telling ourselves for so long that we've   
   >come to half believe them   
      
   If you half believe everyone gets it, since everyone is it,   
   then you might be half way to not presuming others don't.   
      
   If you see how, since everyone is it,   
   then, as they get involved in all the bad news, immerse   
   themselves in the media, and wallow in the yuck, it's all good,   
   perhaps you will not intend as you do intend   
   to say what you say as you say it.   
      
   >> Just as Tang might say what all spiritual masters all say,   
   >> so you may say what is in every human being.   
   >>   
   >> Not having met every human being, I would presume   
   >> that you have not met them all either,   
   >   
   >Not having seen every lake, pond, mirror, diamond, piece of glass on the   
   >planet - am I therefore wrong in saying that I know the same sun   
   >reflects off all of them?   
      
   Between epistemology and grammar can be a world of difference.   
      
   If you know the same sun reflects off all of them,   
   then, by the same knowing, Tang knows what Tang knows.   
      
   Even if Tang never met a single sun that met your standard   
   of how bright the sun needs to be, or if he never met a moon   
   that he didn't like, he can know it because he is it.   
      
   His mirror-mind can be as clear as any water-surface   
   and reflect the same sun as yours or any spiritual master.   
      
   No matter if he disclaims it, to thwart   
   imaginary slings and arrows.   
      
   >>  just as Tang has not   
   >> met every spiritual master and yet, eclectics and syncretists   
   >> might all be said to be the same in various ways.   
   >>   
   >> They might see Taoism as being the same as all other systems.   
   >> Or, if they see differences, those differences are ignored   
   >> as if they made no difference, to every human being.   
   >>   
   >> I've heard Tao is in all things.   
   >> And I've heard of the center to be held fast to.   
   >> I've heard of emptiness, that is the usefulness of uselessness.   
   >   
   >You've heard a lot. What do you *know*?   
      
   I know I'm sitting here, responding to your question.   
      
   >As in "What have you actually experienced?"   
      
   I see the Sun quite often. I used to bathe in it.   
   All day long, in Hawaii, by the swimming pool.   
      
   Such an experience can be taken literally, and metaphorically.   
      
   > Hearsay isn't good enough.   
   >It doesn't light up ANYTHING.   
      
   I can say I am the Sun. And you are the Sun.   
   And each so-called individual has the Sun inside them.   
      
   I can say, you and I are sparks of the Sun.   
   I can say the same thing a thou sand waze.   
      
   I can say we are all mirrors.   
   And that I have experienced all the above.   
      
   But if your mirror is full of dirt, any light anyone shines   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)