XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   dagnabit was quoted by Tang as having written:   
      
   >> Most Jivas have a tunnel vision that is easy to recognize and as   
   >> such I have yet to find anyone face to face or here on the net that   
   >> is at a concept-free level and can discuss these things that I have   
   >> come to understand.>>   
      
   I meet them all the time.   
      
   Basically the main differences persist in the words used.   
      
   If a jiva simply said, I see what you are saying, nice view.   
   That would pretty-much end the conversation   
   between the one that are as two.   
      
   Grammar can be a funny Ting, a funny ping.   
      
   Between the one that appears as two,   
   seeing not-its elf through the eyes of a   
   so-called other as it others it as Self-not.   
      
   Once listening to a Krishnamuti talk, the speaker   
   constantly referred to itself as being the speaker.   
      
   To whom the speaker was speaking may have seemed   
   to have been, to the speaker, as not-other   
   than a pair of many ears, two each,   
   give or take, on the sides.   
      
   The speaker, it appeared in the ears, of the hearer,   
   cared to not-speak in terms such as I or me.   
      
   Many forms of knowing are spoken of.   
   Why, to whom, when they are, they are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)