XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Inner peace and tranquillity are stalking you through the labyrinths of   
   >>>>> your history and your storehouses of ideas.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When you say, you, I suppose you mean, you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My inner peace and tranquility don't stalk me.   
   >>>> They are always there, calm and serene. They are what I am.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Be still for a while. Let   
   >>>>> them find you. They're not scary.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When you say you, maybe you mean, someone else.   
   >>>> Perhaps you are speaking, in your own mind, in general.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Where I may say, some, you might say, you.   
   >>>> As if you are actually talking to me, but really aren't.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Happiness isn't a trap.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> By saying that, you seem to be thinking it is, for someone else.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Be still and listen.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why say such a thing? To whom are you speaking?   
   >>>> I'm still here. I'm still listening. To you. To what you say.   
   >>>> And how you say it.   
   >   
   >You are not listening to what I say - you are studying the way I say it.   
      
   I was asking you, to whom you were speaking.   
      
   If you recall, I'd used the word, some.   
   To which you had objected.   
      
   You said, let us speak, one to another, you and me, me and you.   
      
   Then you wrote what you wrote, at the top of this post.   
   I repeated it, again, down at the bottom, to be clear.   
      
   If you want to converse, one to another, from you to me,   
   then to tell me what you wrote, up at the top, is odd.   
      
   >Your only interest seems to be "Is this Taoism? Or isn't it?"   
      
   If you look again, I asked, to whom are you speaking?   
      
   That was my specific interest.   
      
   >Which is why you are so anxious to know whether I've read Lao-Tzu or   
   >Chuang-Tzu.   
      
   You are in a Taoist group.   
   I was wondering if you are familiar with Taoist texts.   
      
   Some of what you say strikes me as odd.   
      
   When I read the Taoist texts, I get various impressions.   
      
   I'd not seen anything like what you'd presented, up at the top   
   of this post. But maybe that's how you see Taoism.   
      
   Or maybe you aren't talking about Taoism.   
   Perhaps you're writing about something else, instead.   
      
   >In other words, you are trying to determine whether I'm orthodox, or a   
   >heretic.   
      
   No.   
   I was asking very simple questions.   
      
   I don't know why you are saying what you say.   
      
   Are you hear to converse about the topic, i.e. Taoism?   
      
   Or, to spread joy and happiness and have it stalk people?   
   As you assume others are not already full of joy and happy?   
      
   > Possibly, if you decide I'm orthodox, you might try to   
   >understand what I'm saying - but only a little bit. Just enough to   
   >correct my translations against your translations.   
      
   You are making up a story about me. Why do that?   
      
   The questions were simple enough.   
      
   They were in response to what you had written.   
      
   >I've got news for you. Lao Tzu was a heretic.   
      
   Assuming there was such a guy, named Lao Tzu, in the first place,   
   I can see how his Tao differed from the Confucian Tao.   
      
   Taoism in places contrasts with Confucianism.   
      
   Funny thing about that, historically,   
   seeing the dates ascribed to the founders.   
   How the philosophy unfolded as it contrasted.   
      
   >He never read the Tao te Ching.   
      
   Supposedly he wrote the Tao Te Ching.   
      
   Maybe he read it as he wrote it. Or after he wrote it,   
   to see if there were any errors he made when he wrote it.   
   Assuming he existed, to begin the tale.   
      
   Some scholars say the TTC was an accreted text,   
   written by many Lao Tzu over a period of time.   
      
   > Still, somehow, he managed to be enlightened.   
      
   An interesting statement.   
   If there were many, Old Guys, who wrote comments to sayings,   
   somehow they all managed to be enlightened.   
      
   Some suggest the TTC derived from an oral tradition.   
   Hence the rhymes. Mnemonic devices.   
      
   > Someone out of the   
   >kindness of their heart, gave him "the mysterious power" to open and   
   >close the Gate of Heaven.   
      
   You mean, he had a teacher?   
   And his teacher had a teacher?   
   And the first Old Guy got it from, ?   
      
   And ever since the first Old Guy, who got it from ?   
   everyone else need to be taught, by someone else?   
      
   The Gate is closed, forver, ever since the first, Old Guy?   
      
   > From being a chook in a cage waiting to be eaten, he became a hawk   
   >flying free.   
      
   He did leave the country, supposedly.   
   The Gate-keeper said, hey, Old Guy, where you goin?   
   And he said, oh, west. And the Gate-keeper said, not until   
   you leave all your wisdom here. Then you are free to go.   
      
   >>> ...   
   >>   
   >> All I was asking is, why are you saying and to whom are you speaking.   
   >>   
   >> It looks as if you are talking to me, but, if so, you are not   
   >> listening to me nor hearing what I said.   
   >>   
   >>> That's OK.It's all good fun, & it's been a real pleasure meeting with you.   
   >>   
   >> It seems as though you are talking to someone who isn't happy.   
      
   >>>>>  Inner peace and tranquillity are stalking you through the labyrinths of   
   >>>>> your history and your storehouses of ideas.   
      
   It is good fun, and the wine picture-book was interesting.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)