XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nvse46$q31$4@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> brian mitchell  wrote:   
   >>> noname wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> brian mitchell  wrote:   
   >>>>> "{:-])))" wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> Taoism may suggest uncarving, unlearning, forgetting,   
   >>>>>> and returning to a still-point within a center of a center.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Which, of course, would also mean unlearning Taoism. Is it possible,   
   >>>>> in a practical living sense, to experience without any framework   
   >>>>> whatsoever?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Are you getting hooked on letters there?  Are we talking about   
   >>>> no-frame-whatsoever or no-frame-clung-to?   
   >>>   
   >>> A frame may be necessary for the purposes of exposition, but where can   
   >>> we live?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The framework of our lives within the manifestation is called our   
   >> circumstances.   
   >>   
   >> One of the attributes of the sage, implied by what I read in TTC, is that   
   >> the sage acts the same regardless of circumstance.  In a beer-hall,   
   >> sitting   
   >> on a lawn, behind a podium, in a shopping mall or a factory, the sage is   
   >> constant and in harmony with Tao.  Not-initiating much, responding to   
   >> everything, according to the inner nature of that sage and the flow of   
   >> Tao.   
   >>   
   >> The frame is necessary for life like a stage is necessary for a play, you   
   >> need a *place* where the play is staged.  The upper/heavenly/abstract   
   >> realm   
   >> is unmanifest, there is no stage to walk on within the realm of   
   >> abstraction.   
   >>   
   >> Look around you, this is it.  Tales of angels singing praises in Heaven   
   >> are, imo, remnants passed from mouth to mouth too many times to have   
   >> survived the trek.  What was it Jesus said, something about the kingdom of   
   >> heaven being all-around/close-at-hand, it's my opinion he was speaking   
   >> literally of the abstract realm from which the earthly/manifest/physical   
   >> universe arises in constant reinvention.   
   >   
   > he was saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand,   
   > meaning that it is here and now and not some reward   
   > after death, which is still what many believe today   
      
   Yeah, that too.   
      
   > even   
   > though he told them otherwise two thousand years ago.   
   >   
      
   Even though there's no more evidence to support the self-contradictory   
   concept of life-after-death after two thousand years; it shouldn't matter a   
   damn to folks what somebody said about this or that, but what's true.   
   Assertions that fail to show positive evidence after a couple thousand   
   years or so are... a lot less believable than they might have been before   
   the rubes started waiting and watching and trying to believe.   
      
   The other side of things-happen-because-necessary is   
   things-not-happening-are-unnecessary, because anything that can happen will   
   happen, somewhere in the boundlessness of infinite possibility, and if   
   there's an inconvenient time for it to happen, it's even more likely to   
   happen right in your domain, instead of down the street where its energies   
   are un-called-for by a necessity perhaps recognizable as your tendency to   
   panic when everything goes awry at once.   
      
   Not you personally of course, the "proverbial" you, so to speak.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)