XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   {:-])))  wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Sometimes those trackers are looking at a pretty girl when they walk into a   
   bar.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)