XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>   
   >> With Taoism, as a different paradigm, there is no Self.   
   >   
   >Hey, no kidding?   
      
   No kidding. Taoism is not Hinduism.   
   Tang might see similarities. Maybe he has no choice.   
      
   Taoism is not Christianity either. No kidding.   
      
   What do you presume the word, Self, means?   
      
   Maybe you think it means, Sage, versus, sage, eh?   
   If so, the word, Sage, would be better to use in TTC 16.   
      
   > No mention of the individual in Taoism, who woulda   
   >thunkit, prolly nuffink about desire neither, go figure.   
      
   When you see the word, Self, you appear to misread it.   
      
   Individuals in Taoism are many.   
      
   That's part of what distinguishes Taoism from a Hindu view.   
      
   With a Hindu view, all there is, is the Self.   
   It's the same exact Self looking out of all eyes.   
   Very dramatic. As if reality is a dream, of the Self.   
   And all the so-called, individuals, are dust in a dream.   
   They are manifestations of the personal Brahman.   
   Krishna is that Self. Arjuna is dreaming a dream   
   within a dream within a dream, of Krishna's.   
      
   That is not found in Taoism, as far as I am aware. Seriously.   
   There's plenty of dust kicked around. And dreams are mentioned.   
   And, eventually, there may be an awakening. Great.   
   But I don't find any mention of the Krishna-Self.   
   Maybe I missed it, entirely.   
      
   Tao is not a personal Brahman.   
      
   Tao as the impersonal Brahman can be compared.   
   In such a case, Tao is not Atman. Differences arise.   
      
   Yet if one insists Atman is Tao, I can see that.   
      
   Definitions of words are able to be many.   
   In such a case, you can be said to be Tao,   
   if you identify your self with Atman.   
      
   With Feng's TTC, he uses the word, Self, and that is,   
   in my most not-humble opinion, a bad word to use.   
      
   There is no Self that watches, in a Taoist paradigm,   
   as all things returning to their roots. There is no Krishna   
   at play as playing all things to his hearts' contents.   
      
   Maybe Jane dragged that in with her, or the editor,   
   for whatever reasoning they might have used.   
      
   There is no singular Self, that is looking out of all eyes   
   and hearing out of all ears in a Taoist paradigm.   
      
   You appear to be seriously confused.   
   You do not appear to realize what is being said,   
   by me, when I use the word, Self, with a Capital S.   
   Nor what I am calling, a Hindu paradigm.   
      
   http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap16.htm#top   
      
   Of all the translators, only Crowley also uses Self,   
   as a word, and he does it in his own eclectic fashion.   
      
   And yet, if one wills all paradigms to be the same,   
   then, this being Burger King, I'm okay with that.   
      
   Semantics and context.   
   Who'd a thunk it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)