XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname wrote:   
   > Tang wrote:   
   >> brian mitchell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The point was not too subtle; too useless. To have anything mean   
   >>> anything makes discourse pointless.   
   >>   
   >> Oooohh, this is an whopper.  It is true, surely, that the   
   >> spiritual masters do want to declare something, their   
   >> respective path to the end-goal, be it awakening or   
   >> grace or whatever.   
      
   There are many sorts of so-called spiritual masters.   
      
   Some want.   
   Some simpy are.   
      
   Some attract students.   
   Some reject students.   
      
   Some have goals.   
   Some are without goals.   
      
   >> It is also true that they are   
   >> inveterate eel-wrigglers who sleaze their way out of   
   >> what they say, relentlessly, so as to leave no stone   
   >> unturned (including stone tablets), to impress on   
   >> their students the relative nature of anything in   
   >> speech and thought, be it to their immediate students   
   >> in their physical presence or to remote students far   
   >> away in space, time, language, culture, custom, etc.   
      
   Taking on a role, spiritual-master, role-play begins.   
      
   >> So, in effect, they intentionally try to turn things   
   >> upside down, including their own teaching, to make   
   >> anything mean anything, so that their students have   
   >> nothing to rely on -- imparting the unestablished   
   >> thought/mind, as if by bodily transmission, by mind   
   >> hits.   
      
   Drum rolls vary.   
      
   >> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a   
   >> scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to   
   >> mean – neither more nor less."   
   >>   
   >> "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make   
   >> words mean so many different things."   
   >>   
   >> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to   
   >> be master – that's all."   
   >   
   >Is it gullibly stupid of me to assume that you both recognize the ambiguity   
   >of brian's statement?   
      
   I often wonder how people talk past each other and why.   
      
   With some discourse, it goes without saying a point is taken.   
   Such might be called, pure conversation, Qing Tan.   
      
   Forms of discourse vary.   
   Within a coversation points may be made.   
      
   At times, among friends, people may say, how   
   is the weather? And then two begin.   
      
   An asshole, such as myself, may then spout on about how   
   whether the word how means meteorology or if   
   the question means something else.   
      
   >"To have anything mean anything makes discourse pointless."   
      
   To weather words   
   It matters whether   
      
   >To have anything [in particular] mean anything [specific] makes discourse   
   >possible.   
   >To have anything [at all] mean anything [at all] makes discourse   
   >pointless...   
      
   When friends greet each other, they may use a modem.   
   Some use hand-signs. Others use a few words.   
      
   When strangers pass each other on the street, they may   
   tip their hats, nod, or cross over to the side without a raft.   
      
   Some, even stranger, people carry a ladder.   
   They never know when their under   
   standing they have needs   
   to climb a tree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)