XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >It's as simple as - I'm having a conversation with you, and I know one   
   >or two others are listening in. There's no mystery in that.   
   >So what is happening is both a private conversation and a public   
   >performance.   
   >   
   >I like talking to people, one on one, although I don't do it often.   
   >Every now and then, for a short while, I like to perform. Maybe once a   
   >year. In the hope that it might remind the 'fit audience, though few' of   
   >something they maybe once knew, a long time ago, when the world was young.   
      
   I suppose there may be a few here such as that.   
      
   I have yet to see you see anyone that is fit,   
   that fits your idea of what you are looking for in others.   
      
   Maybe many here never forgot.   
   But, because of the words they use,   
   you get the impression they did, or they never knew.   
      
   There are a few here that are seeking answers   
   to various questions. I have yet to see you provide any   
   that anyone has said has given them what they seek.   
      
   Yet perhaps they are lurking, and just never spoke up.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >There may be millions of ways. But in this day & age it's the simplest way.   
      
   Okay. So it does not necessarily take a living Master.   
      
   That point appears to now be settled, once, and perhaps for all.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >A book will give you a hypothetical realization. In other words, by   
   >mastering the concepts offered by the book, your rational mind can   
   >fabricate an image of what an enlightened person might think, look like,   
   >sound like, feel. Then it can persuade you that you fit the description,   
   >and that you owe it to yourself to project that image to others.   
   >This is a fake enlightenment enlisted in the service of the ego.   
      
   I suppose there are those who are as you portray.   
      
   >A Master will show you that no projection is necessary. Any concepts you   
   >may have gleaned from books or other peoples' experience are irrelevant.   
   >You can think, feel, act, any way you like - so long as you stay in   
   >touch with your own essence, your inner core.That's the source of your   
   >freedom. That enables you to stay centered and balanced.   
      
   Sounds good to me.   
   If that's what you need, then that's what you need.   
   If that's what anyone needs, then that's that.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)