XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/10/2016 3:59 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
      
   > Yes, but it's not *my* meaning. It's the meaning seen in the incident   
   > by the particular commentator who made the record. I don't have a clue   
   > what *that* meaning is.   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > Able to be indicated, or perhaps even demonstrated, most often through   
   > a question-and-answer format. The *that* isn't put into words, but the   
   > words may lead the listener's mind to it. The words are clues, they   
   > are not random nonsense, and neither are they the verbal equivalent of   
   > a Rorschach test.   
      
   If you "don't have a clue what *that* meaning is", how   
   can you tell what it is not?   
      
   I have often accused you of being realist, literalist and   
   follower of Jewish mythology. You keep charging in to   
   confirm my accusation, for free and unasked.   
      
   You are in the mindset of the words as commands   
   carved on stone tablets brought down the mountain,   
   treating them in utter awe and veneration, as wholly   
   other than what happens amongst us humans.   
   Remember the burning of scriptures and Buddha   
   statues?   
      
   How do you know that the words are "not random   
   nonsense, and neither are they the verbal equivalent   
   of a Rorschach test"?   
      
   The pretended records are records of everyday events,   
   unpretentious interactions between masters and   
   student, or between masters and masters. They check   
   each other out, just like in ordinary discourse, when   
   people greet each other and say little pleasantries,   
   checking each other out on the quick without looking   
   too serious about it. In more serious settings, like   
   police interrogations, the cops tend to either home in   
   on a specific point, like what the person across the   
   desk was or did at a certain point in time and space,   
   or to engage in vague, non-committal, open-ended   
   pleasantries to get the person across the desk blurt   
   out some secrets inadvertently, on a tangent. The   
   latter would be par excellence "random nonsense, and   
   the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach test", where the   
   cops present a blank screen for the person across the   
   desk to project on.   
      
   There is methinks no total, unbridgeable difference   
   between the question-and-answer occurrences in   
   Chan and everyday happenstances, as above, but they   
   are similar to each other, so that, in some instances,   
   the masters just blow smoke from their a**ses   
   ("random nonsense"), just to set their respondents off   
   ("the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach test"), and get   
   them to spill their guts, for nothing. Remember the   
   saying: selling water by the river?   
      
   Now, you should go back to Jewish mythology, as you   
   are a docile fundie of it. You are made for it. It suits you   
   to a t, like hand and glove. All your revolt against it has   
   been in vain. "Vanity of vanities".   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)