[cite] Michael from a mountain:[/cite]Each quote becomes a different blind man’s view of that same elephant we share in the parts of our lives that have no parts, times or distances.
Each contradiction and complementary-opposite pair educate us when we see their real unity, always found just past the distinctions imposed by the abstractions of our perception.
Nice! Although, it took you awhile to get there. But of course, as one of my all time favorites points out, ‘[chref=36]If you would have a thing shrink, you must first stretch it[/chref]’.
[cite] loom:[/cite]The urging was to go beyond the "form" of the words in the Taoist text and find the essence (or Reality). I will relinquish the platform to those luminaries whose body of work cannot be argued away as mere "words" in the "form" of "human speech." The reader may decide their relevance:
Lots of good commentaries you quote up there. Nevertheless, in the end, the commentaries we (including “luminaries”) make, simply reflect what we love, aspire to love, or see glimpses of what we aspire to love. At a deeper level I’d say such commentaries project that which we feel lacking, and thus long for more. Of course there is the flip side, i.e., what we loath, aspire to loath, or see glimpses of aspiring to loath. At a deeper level I’d say such commentaries project that which we feel overflowing, and thus long for less. Words are the symbolic expressions of such feelings. These projections are symptomatic of our inner life; they say much about our fears and needs, and nothing about ‘reality’. In a way this reminds me of Shakespeare’s , "Thou does protest too much!" (or, perhaps the converse of that?)
I’m not attempting to “argue away” any commentary; rather, I’m attempting to put all commentary on that level playing field of [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref]. One way to do this is to point out that the more we talk about ‘it’, the less we know ‘it’. This reminds me of that expression, ‘those who can do, those who can’t teach’. Of course, that includes me, I readily admit. I know that ‘[chref=18]when cleverness emerges there is great hypocrisy[/chref]’ applies to me. The comments I make are ossified, stagnant remains of what I can only describe as my ‘take’ on the [chref=43]the teaching that uses no words[/chref]. Any comments I makes obviously entail [chref=71]thinking that I know[/chref], even if I claim that I don’t know.
If that is so, why bother speaking at all? Ah, like I have a choice! The reality of words is not contained in what they say; that is illusionary. The reality of words lies in the feelings evoked by the words exchanged between the speaker / writer and the listener / reader. Monkeys socialize through picking flees from each other’s hide. We nit pick via names and words - language.
[cite] as Joe:[/cite]I think that our being "social primates" is a great disclaimer for anything anybody ever says, no matter how "enlightened" it might appear...
In truth, I see myself just stumbling about feeling my way from moment to moment. The only significant thing that I’ve found so far is [chref=40]Nothing[/chref]. The ‘somethings’ of words just don’t do it justice!
As far as communicating ‘truth’ through words goes, I just fall back on some of the succinct comments in the Tao Te Ching, such as:
[chref=23] To use words but rarely is to be natural.[/chref]
[chref=32]Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref]
Not only do I cut 'it', I minced it up real good!
[cite] loom also:[/cite]If we see but duality of the two, how can we know the unity of one, and what of the Tao from which both sprang?
Not only seeing the duality, but really coming to grips with it helped me see it for the [chref=65]hoodwink[/chref] that it is. As the good book says, ‘[chref=36]if you would have a thing laid aside, you must first set it up[/chref]’. Personally, I used what I call correlations to grapple with the ultimate nonsense that are words and names.
If you would have a thing shrink, you must first stretch it
For me, that's just how any thing or action in this world works, including words, lives, thoughts, us, our conversations and all the rest here and every where or when else.
We stretch our spirit selves into this world to communicate or touch through the bumbling awkwardness of being and perceiving the physical. Our fellow god faces have also stretched themselves here to offer us some meaning from their spirit centers, whether that face is a person, conversation, action, thing or moment.
The details of the bumbling, weighty forms we touch through here reliably evaporate, shrinks, as the meaning is 'absorbed' into our size-free awareness, 'absorbed' as the spirit talk of growth.
Comments
Nice! Although, it took you awhile to get there. But of course, as one of my all time favorites points out, ‘[chref=36]If you would have a thing shrink, you must first stretch it[/chref]’.
I’m not attempting to “argue away” any commentary; rather, I’m attempting to put all commentary on that level playing field of [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref]. One way to do this is to point out that the more we talk about ‘it’, the less we know ‘it’. This reminds me of that expression, ‘those who can do, those who can’t teach’. Of course, that includes me, I readily admit. I know that ‘[chref=18]when cleverness emerges there is great hypocrisy[/chref]’ applies to me. The comments I make are ossified, stagnant remains of what I can only describe as my ‘take’ on the [chref=43]the teaching that uses no words[/chref]. Any comments I makes obviously entail [chref=71]thinking that I know[/chref], even if I claim that I don’t know.
If that is so, why bother speaking at all? Ah, like I have a choice! The reality of words is not contained in what they say; that is illusionary. The reality of words lies in the feelings evoked by the words exchanged between the speaker / writer and the listener / reader. Monkeys socialize through picking flees from each other’s hide. We nit pick via names and words - language.
In truth, I see myself just stumbling about feeling my way from moment to moment. The only significant thing that I’ve found so far is [chref=40]Nothing[/chref]. The ‘somethings’ of words just don’t do it justice!
As far as communicating ‘truth’ through words goes, I just fall back on some of the succinct comments in the Tao Te Ching, such as:
[chref=23] To use words but rarely is to be natural.[/chref]
[chref=32]Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref]
Not only do I cut 'it', I minced it up real good!
Not only seeing the duality, but really coming to grips with it helped me see it for the [chref=65]hoodwink[/chref] that it is. As the good book says, ‘[chref=36]if you would have a thing laid aside, you must first set it up[/chref]’. Personally, I used what I call correlations to grapple with the ultimate nonsense that are words and names.
For me, that's just how any thing or action in this world works, including words, lives, thoughts, us, our conversations and all the rest here and every where or when else.
We stretch our spirit selves into this world to communicate or touch through the bumbling awkwardness of being and perceiving the physical. Our fellow god faces have also stretched themselves here to offer us some meaning from their spirit centers, whether that face is a person, conversation, action, thing or moment.
The details of the bumbling, weighty forms we touch through here reliably evaporate, shrinks, as the meaning is 'absorbed' into our size-free awareness, 'absorbed' as the spirit talk of growth.