XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>> {:-]))) had responded:   
   >>>> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Sensible might be to go where the food is.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Naturally.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But if the name of the group was, alt.deciphering.tomb.inscriptions.   
   >>>> on.the.coffins.of.long-dead.chefs, then it's a different story.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Unless you have a living Master transmitting living Knowledge to you   
   >>>> right now, assuming you are a living student, you, right now,   
   >>>> might be in a wine cellar with a flash-light.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Unless, by the term, living Master, you mean a non-physical one.   
   >>>   
   >>> I mean a real one.   
   >>   
   >> But not present, right now, right here.   
   >>   
   >>> One who can transmit Knowledge. Self-Knowledge.   
   >>   
   >> And, by Knowledge. Self-Knowledge.   
   >> You have referred to the hub, the axis, the pivot of Tao.   
   >> The center, so to speak. An awareness, I would assume.   
   >>   
   >> That you received. From someone. At some time. In the past.   
   >> And it brought you great joy. To have found. Yourself.   
   >> Your own secret room you didn't know existed.   
   >> Someone handed you a key.   
   >>   
   >>> Not Knowledge of the Master, not Knowledge of the way things were in   
   >>> China 3000 years ago. Knowledge of me.   
   >   
   >My mistake. I should've guessed you'd take it literally.   
      
   When you keep flipping from speaking to me and of me, personally,   
   to generalizing about how everyone is, to how you are,   
   I find it to be a bit flippy-flappy.   
      
   >Instead of "Knowledge of me" I should have written "Knowledge of the   
   >Self as it exists in the present moment"   
      
   Now, in my lexicon, when I see the word, Self,   
   what that evokes in my, Knowing,   
   tends toward Atman   
   Brahman.   
      
   Is that the Self you are referring to?   
   I don't think it is. But I figured I'd ask to be sure.   
      
   >> Okay. So you are speaking of yourself. Of your story.   
   >>   
   >> Your very own story. Not anyone else.   
   >   
   >No, I'm speaking of every "self" that exists here and now. Myself,   
   >yourself, ourselves. All the selves that pass the wine bottle around in   
   >the bamboo grove.   
      
   Okay. Now you have switched from upper-case to lower-case.   
   From the word, Self, to the word, self.   
      
   You are not speaking only to me. Nor only about you.   
   You were, then you weren't. Now you aren't.   
      
   You don't appear to me to see the Self as being the Being   
   or Existence that is, actually, as a matter of facts in acts,   
   the very exact same Self that shines through all eyes.   
      
   You have not experience that.   
   Nor do I think you would say that you Know that Self.   
   Maybe you do. It's unclear to me if that's what you're saying.   
      
   You've said all the words mean the same thing.   
   If that's true, then there's only one Self.   
   Atman is Brahman. That's enlightenment. Satori. Etc.   
      
   You seem to have some kind of duality-system going for you   
   that involves a so-called, other, a living Master.   
      
   And now, you've changed your verbiage, again, from you,   
   by using the word, me, to generalizing the meaning to all selves.   
      
   Maybe you can see how it's difficult for me to follow your thoughts.   
      
   Sometimes you seem to be talking to me, personally.   
   Sometimes you're speaking of everyone, generally.   
      
   I tend to think you're speaking of yourself, actually.   
   And you generalize that, and say you Know   
   how it is for all people all the time.   
      
   >>> So he hands me a mirror, in which I see myself as I really am. Does he   
   >>> have to keep handing me a mirror every minute of every day? Of course not.   
   >>   
   >> That's good for you.   
   >> It's nice that someone handed you a mirror.   
   >>   
   >> If you'd seen your reflection in a still, quiet, lake   
   >> then you might have become attached to lakes.   
   >   
   >The point isn't the mirror or the lake - the point is the reflection   
   >that shines back at you. "Ah! so that's what I really am"   
   >or   
   >more simply   
   >"Wow! That's me?"   
      
   I thought your point was that the only way to see one's self   
   is if a living Master unlocks the secret room and only he/she   
   has the key. That's the one and only way.   
      
   No book, no lake, no mirror, no one single normal person is able,   
   on one's own, without any help from another physical body,   
   another self, who is alive, right now, at this time,   
   can have the key to one's own reflection.   
      
   And that other, living person, must be a living Master.   
   And how one Knows that other person is a living Master   
   you Know by virtue of your own living Master.   
      
   I'd thought that was your point.   
   And so, you Know, it's the same, for everyone else.   
      
   That was a very distinct impression I'd gotten, from you,   
   based on what you'd written.   
      
   Are you now saying I got the wrong impression?   
      
   >> And then, it might appear as if you were saying, everyone   
   >> needs to go find a lake. Because that is what worked, for you.   
   >>   
   >> Is that what you're saying?   
   >   
   >All I'm saying is that anyone who finds a way to see past their history   
   >and conditioning to their own inner beauty and clarity is going to be   
   >agreeably surprised.   
      
   Okay then, everyone can forget about the need   
   to find a living Master. That now seems to be your point.   
      
   A way is a way.   
   There are many ways.   
      
   I don't know if you changed your point or not.   
      
   >To become addicted to the mirror would be stupid. To be grateful to the   
   >person who lent it to you would be courteous.   
      
   Or the lake. Or the book. Or the little butterfly that fluttered by.   
      
   Unless it can't work like that.   
   Because you, Know, it can't work that way.   
      
   >To become addicted to the lake would be to risk drowning, if a storm   
   >brewed up.   
      
   That makes sense. You might be aware of an actual word for that.   
   It has something to do with a guy who fell in love with his own face   
   that he saw, in a lake. Narcissus. Maybe you've heard of him.   
      
   >> Or. No. It can'be be found in a lake.   
   >> It can't be found in a book.   
   >>   
   >> It can't be found by taking a look.   
   >> In a mirror. No. No.   
   >>   
   >> It can only be given by the brook.   
   >> And not by hook nor by crook.   
   >>   
   >> It needs to be cooked by a cook.   
   >> A living Chef. And you need to be spoon fed.   
   >>   
   >> And by you, I mean, in the past. You. Personally.   
   >>   
   >> That's your story.   
   >>   
   >> It's a good story. I like it.   
   >> It's just not everyone's story.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe you can appreciate that.   
   >   
   >I can appreciate that you almost desperately want it to be not your story.   
      
   I have no idea why you would appreciate that.   
   Since it isn't my story.   
      
   I'm simply trying to figure out your story.   
      
   >I can't quite understand why. After all - all you're going to see in the   
   >mirror is your self. Yourself. Is that such a frightening prospect?   
      
   Not at all.   
      
   Why do you presume that I have not seen my own face   
   in a mirror, a lake, a book, or that my very own living Master   
   did not show me my own face many times?   
      
   Is it, because of the words you see I write?   
   And you can't see past those words?   
      
   If you can't see past something,   
   or see beyond something, then you can't.   
      
   It appears to me to be quite as simple as that.   
      
   >> Some folks are quite happy by a lake.   
   >> Some are very happy with what they take   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)