XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: nottony.nokingsbury@ngmail.com   
      
   On 11/10/2016 3:08 PM, {:-]))) wrote:   
   > Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >> {:-]))) 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.   
   >   
   > Okay.   
   > If that's all you see, then that's all you see.   
   >   
   >> Either that is honest - in which case the impression I get of you is   
   >> 'correct'.   
   >   
   > You see what I write, as you see what I write.   
   >   
   > Why you see what you see in what I write   
   > might have something to do with you   
   > as much if not more than with what I write.   
   >   
   >> Or it is fake - you are projecting an image of yourself which you would   
   >> like others to accept as 'you'.   
   >   
   > It's possible that you are projecting   
   > whatever you see on to whatever it is I write.   
   >   
   > Perhaps you are projecting an image of yourself which you would   
   > like others to accept as 'you'.   
   >   
   > As for me, I'm just being me.   
   > I like puns. I enjoy being here a great deal.   
   > Usually each morning at around three I read the newsgroup.   
   > Maybe there's some Taoism to be found, or not.   
   >   
   > If there isn't any at first glance, I look for whatever mites be.   
   > To project mites on to a screen is funny to me.   
   > Maybe they creep you out a bit.   
   >   
   > And that's why you see what you see.   
   > They cross the moats at times when they float.   
   >   
   >> Tell me which it is - and I will be able to calibrate my 'certainty'   
   >> accordingly.   
   >   
   > I write what I write.   
   > You see what you see.   
   >   
   > I write, honestly, unless I'm being sarcastic.   
   > I honestly like to read the Chuang-tzu.   
   > I find great joy in it.   
   >   
   > I call it Tao, the hub, the center, in many of its stories.   
   > If you don't find any of that in the Chuang-tzu,   
   > then you don't find it in that writing.   
   >   
   > If you don't see it in any Taoist texts, cuz they're dead,   
   > then I don't expect you to see it in me either.   
   > My words have a short shelf-life.   
   >   
   > They tend to expire day by day.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > So you say, it can be seen.   
   > It is in me. The true light still shines.   
   >   
   > It always shines. Whether you see it or not.   
   > Whether you see it in my writing, or not.   
   >   
   > Why you don't see it in me, as, apparently,   
   > given what you have written you don't,   
   > I don't know.   
   >   
   > Maybe I'm not using the words you want to see.   
   > Or say them the way you want me to say them.   
   >   
   > Perhaps you have a prejudice.   
   > Maybe you have judged books in some fashion   
   > and what you see me write suggests books to you.   
   >   
   > That could explain what you see in what I write.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Very little light, is light.   
   >   
   > If it doesn't shine very bright, to you,   
   > it might be your eyes, or maybe it's something else.   
   >   
   > Maybe you don't like puns.   
   > Perhaps they remind you of someone or ones.   
   >   
   > Maybe you didn't do well in school   
   > and that's why you don't like books. I don't know.   
      
   That's not it. I did very well at school. I've a first-class degree, & a   
   Ph.D. I taught for many years in universities - and, as I mentioned   
   somewhere else, write books myself.   
   I'm very fond of books.   
      
   They have just one limitation - they can't convey enlightenment.   
   And to experience that is worth 10,000 books.   
   Just as one living Master is worth 10,000 dead ones.   
      
   >   
   > Apparently you don't know either.   
   > All you know is that my writing sheds little light.   
   >   
   > Not, no light.   
   > And that's something to keep in mind.   
   > If you care to keep that in mind.   
   >   
   >>> 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 -   
   >   
   > You just said there is very little light.   
   > Now you've said you can't see it.   
   >   
   > You don't appear to know what you see,   
   > how much you see, or if you see, to me, me.   
   >   
   > You said all you see is what I write   
   > and you saw very little light.   
   >   
   > Then you said you can't see it.   
   >   
   > So I'm not sure what you see   
   > or if you know what you see   
   > from line to line or moment.   
   >   
   >> for the simple reason that I   
   >> know you're alive, and the light of awareness is an essential component   
   >> of life.   
   >   
   > How much light will suffice   
   > for you to see in me something that you, it would seem, want to see   
   > is beyond me. Only you might know how much you see.   
   >   
   > If it be a little, very little, none, or something else.   
   >   
   > Or if there be some special words that make you beam.   
   > For me to be on the beam, for you to not see the mote, in my eye.   
   >   
   >> You seem to think this is a "generalisation" and therefore can be safely   
   >> ignored.   
   >   
   > I'm not sure what you're referring to now.   
   > I thought you were talking to me about me.   
   >   
   > Now you seem to be generalizing.   
   >   
   > I'm not ignoring anything. I'm trying to follow your thought-train.   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > I would think that if you see a drop of water in me   
   > then you see the water in me. If you see a glass   
   > half full of water in me, then that's what you see.   
   >   
   > If you see me overflowing with light and love   
   > then that is what you see, in me, in my writing.   
   >   
   > If you see a glass half empty of water in me,   
   > and it's the same level as seeing the glass half-full,   
   > then I would say it's your perspective that changed.   
   >   
   > If you are no longer talking with me about me and you,   
   > but have moved on, to speak in general about life,   
   > that's okay with me.   
   >   
   >>> So what's the big deal about the age of a book?   
   >>   
   >> It's a very small deal. The light shines only in the present. The book   
   >> is an artifact from the past. It's not alive. There's no light in it.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)