XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Lack of words to describe it perhaps?   
      
   Maybe he used a poor choice of words   
   when he said he had no clue as to meaning,   
   meaning what a clue is, is put in to doubt.   
      
   Lao Tzu said he lacked an exact ming.   
   His wu ming he called Tao for that exact reason.   
   Ore sewn sums may say they.   
      
   Yu arises from wu, yet why those who say so say so   
   can be called an ontological procession of 10k-things.   
      
   Gradually the monks proceed until suddenly   
   they have graduated their beakers and measure well.   
      
   In the lab oratories of mind.   
   Pure chemistry produces more of its kind.   
      
   >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 formless form is continually unformed   
   no matter how many times a religion or philosophy is reformed   
   and reformulated. It's the same old form. The content varies.   
      
   Monks are informed of how all containers contain   
   and are themselves contained within   
   *that* which contains all.   
      
   There was nothing new for those who knew   
   of the realms they knew all to well about.   
      
   They dug them for the refreshing nature   
   of what was in the wells to be found.   
   And a few were written down.   
      
   >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?   
      
   When someone says there is nothing to see here,   
   many people stop in their tracks.   
      
   They crane their necks to see what isn't there.   
      
   Unless and until they are absolutely sure, they are captivated   
   by the possibility they missed something important.   
      
   Otherwise, there would not be someone standing there   
   telling everyone there is nothing to see.   
      
   Some of those who seek set up shop, having found,   
   there is plenty of  *that*  to go round and round.   
      
   They might even sail across a sea or an ocean   
   to get their notions of  *that*  spread far and wide.   
      
   >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".   
      
   Nothing is so profound as emptiness.   
      
   Wu who know, know their well beingness.   
      
   Yet the double-entendres often fly over heads   
   as geese, honking or not. At times their tracks are seen   
   by those trackers of tracks with eyes trained as thought   
   streams along by the waters' edges.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)