XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >   
   >> Are you saying you don't want a Platonic relationship with dagnabit?   
   >>   
   >> Maybe I'm not quite understanding your point here.   
   >   
   >I have never known her anywhere else than on these boards. No   
   >e-mail, nothing in private. Below is a (somewhat chaotic) sample   
   >of her posts, from 2004, when she posted under the nym Dominic.   
      
   Looking up the nym, Dominic, it appears to be a boy's name.   
      
   >Classic Jen stuff. I bow low to her profound insight. Many   
   >apologies to her for not having "got" her point back then, even   
   >intellectually alone.   
   >   
   ><clown acts in search of approval from cathode ray   
   >tubes, should i be expected to inflate their balloons   
   >for them?   
   >   
   >i can already see that that flower on your lapel simply   
   >squirts water.>>   
      
   Seeing the writer as a female is suggestive.   
      
   Seeing the writer as other than a female   
   another impression is illuminated.   
      
   ><triumvirate is so abyssmally infinitesimal in the cosmic chaotic   
   >scheme of things that any actions towards any type of discipline,   
   >philosophy or practice are going to have such a minute effect on   
   >a monumentally worthless insignificant insubstantial   
   >phenomenality that all efforts in this direction are infinitely   
   >hilarious and a complete waste of phenomenal time. there is no   
   >need to be or do anything. just be. being is utterly whole perfect   
   >and complete just as it is.>>   
   >   
   ><waste a lot of breath in propogating a system of wordmongered   
   >self disciplines and self aggrandizements   
   >   
   >how you can sit there and say that there should be no concern   
   >for self and the things of self and then wordstorm thousands of   
   >posts with quote after quote about the eightfold noble path is   
   >the height of contradiction hypocrisy and incongruency   
   >   
   >but that can be fun too>>   
   >   
   ><that's practicing it and what type of advantage can be said to   
   >effulge and to whom?   
      
   Calling you by the name, sweetnumbs,   
   might suggest, to you, a woman is calling you that.   
      
   I can see why you might think as such.   
      
   I might get the impression you are a woman.   
   Or something else, by the way you use words.   
   Since you use words to that same effect.   
      
   What affect you are attempting to project   
   when you use the words you use are subject   
   to a reader's interpretation, n'est-ce pas?   
      
   >the principles at play here, the consciousness and the   
   >energies which play out into multitudinous personalities and   
   >idiosyncracies are already perfect in their base design owing   
   >to the notion that they are a pale reflection of that one true   
   >prior most principle which is perfect whole and complete   
   >within itself, the ding an sich, the thing in and of itself, and   
   >nothing needs to be done to change it or to try to be something   
   >other than what you already are right now. that which is the   
   >creative principle cannot be changed anyway.   
   >   
   >the only thing that you could ever change is the false self, that   
   >which you identify yourself as, the body-mind-personality. why   
   >bother with all the practices and disciplines to alter something   
   >that is false and slippery to begin with? you only shift its   
   >falseness and slipperiness to a different channel.>>   
   >   
   ><simply be. stop trying to intellectualize that which is completely   
   >useless to begin with   
   >[snip]   
   >don't even begin to start with. you can't begin again if you   
   >never worry about starting anything up at all knowing full well   
   >that everything but everything is completely useless worthless   
   >and insignificant to begin with and all practices show what a   
   >fool one is for even trying to bring significance to utter   
   >insignificance.>>   
   >   
   ><heaven from hell   
   >blue skies from pain   
   >can you tell a green field   
   >from a cold steel rail   
   >a smile from a veil   
   >do you think you can tell   
   >   
   >and did they get you to trade   
   >your heroes for ghosts   
   >hot ashes for trees   
   >hot air for a cool breeze   
   >cold comfort for charge   
   >and did you exchange   
   >a walk on part in the war   
   >for a lead roll in a cage   
   >   
   >how i wish, how i wish you were here   
   >we're just two lost souls swimmin' in a fish bowl year after year,   
   >running over the same old ground what have we found, the   
   >same old fears wish you were here>>   
   >   
   ><order to be actualized and substantiated as such?   
   >   
   >are you enlightened? if not, second hand advice like this might   
   >actually foster a reverse effect and keep you from an ultimate   
   >expansion of your horizon of awareness. buddha appeared to   
   >be teaching for his day and the particular person or people   
   >sitting in front of him at the time. he also said that his words   
   >needed to be dropped ultimately, the story of the raft, and   
   >nisargadatta maharaj said the same thing, that his disciples   
   >would ultimately need to let go of his teachings since his words   
   >were like all other words, simply concepts in a conceptual   
   >realm where what he was attempting to describe was beyond   
   >or prior to words and concepts in a type of metanoesis d   
   >esignation, or beyond wisdom, as such.   
   >absolute reasoning defies logic. absolute reasoning defies   
   >reason.>>   
   >   
   ><might like to shimmer in resonant luminosity to the tune of   
   >changing what i appear to be into what i think i should appear   
   >to be, none of it, conceptual or cognizable, will be to any   
   >advantage except to that resonant luminosity and its survival   
   >agenda and strategy   
   >   
   >beneath it all, the subtle implicate order is perfect whole and   
   >complete in and of itself and needs no relative renditionalities   
   >to secure its place in the survival matrix it has identified with.   
   >   
   >there is nothing that you need to become or change yourself   
   >into. all that is needed  is to recognize that you are not this   
   >body or its subsequent mind and personality and with this   
   >understanding comes a total freedom that is beyond   
   >description because this state is prior to designations, words   
   >and concepts.   
   >   
   >go right now to zero concepts. stay there.>>   
   >   
   ><bleed stream that fractals its depressurized enharmonic line   
   >fields to the tune of sineuous-synchrotropic vibratility which is   
   >behind itself looking into itself and fooling itself into thinking it   
   >is elsewise than what it really is.   
   >   
   >exactly how one approaches the relinquishment of all that one   
   >is not, the body the mind and the personality is by observation   
   >of it. under observation all these periphery of existence stages   
   >can tend to drop off including the main illusion of *i am*. the i   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)