XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Ummmmmmm  wrote:   
   > On 10/10/2016 3:37 PM, {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> If you want to talk with me, personally, you might not assume   
   >>>> whatever it is you are assuming about me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't think you have any secret that I don't.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What gave you that impression?   
   >>>   
   >>> You did.   
   >>   
   >> How so?   
   >>   
   >> Are you certain I did?   
   >> And that your impression is correct?   
   >> That how you see me is how I actually am?   
   >   
   > I see only what you write.   
   > Either that is honest - in which case the impression I get of you is   
   > 'correct'.   
   > Or it is fake - you are projecting an image of yourself which you would   
   > like others to accept as 'you'.   
   >   
   > Tell me which it is - and I will be able to calibrate my 'certainty'   
   > accordingly.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Chuang Tzu had a secret too."Better to abandon disputation and seek the   
   >>> True Light" (ii. 3)   
   >>>   
   >>> My secret is, that the true light still shines. That it is in you. That   
   >>> it can be seen.   
   >>   
   >> If it is in me, and you can see it, then why dispute it?   
   >   
   > I have only your writings to look at - and in those I see only a lot of   
   > shadows, and very little light.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> You are not making very much sense.   
   >>   
   >> You seem to be having some odd thoughts going on   
   >> as you fabricate your story about me.   
   >>   
   >>> It's not a 3000 year old idea, it's a present, actual fact.   
   >>   
   >> And you can see it, in me.   
   >   
   > I can't see it, but i know it's there - for the simple reason that I   
   > know you're alive, and the light of awareness is an essential component   
   > of life.   
   >   
   > You seem to think this is a "generalisation" and therefore can be safely   
   > ignored. But it isn't, it's a simple fact. Like I know that water is   
   > made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Do I have to look at   
   > every bit of water on the surface of the planet to know that this is true?   
      
   You have to look at no fewer than one, you moron; did you ever look at   
   water so closely that you saw the parts of hydrogen and oxygen?  I think   
   not, I think you got believed into knowing what you think you know.   
      
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)