XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/25/2016 5:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
      
   > Which would be a change, part of "whatever we conceive them to be". My   
   > point was that all religions do work for a few people.  So the rest of   
   > us must be lacking some basic understanding.   
      
   I believe, without scientific evidence, that   
   the human mind is built in a certain way   
   and works in a certain way, so that some   
   factors help it come together and make   
   its host become together, and that this   
   coming together in harmony of the various   
   faculties is called "it works". This   
   confluence and convergence works in   
   disregard to specific content, but by dint   
   of the cooperation between the human   
   mind and such factors, with any content   
   involved serving as mere enabler, mere   
   carrier. I am aware that such attempt at   
   explanation tends to be circular and   
   tautological, but it is how the human mind   
   works: to me it works in vicious circles   
   and virtuous circles. Honesty to oneself,   
   openness to oneself constitute a virtuous   
   circle that strengthens itself, and   
   dishonesty to oneself and closedness to   
   oneself constitute a vicious circle that   
   also reinforces itself.   
      
   Such factors to me are concentration,   
   mindfulness, insight, the attempt of mind   
   to penetrate itself, faith (which is simply   
   faith in the possibility that the methods   
   followed will work, and not faith in any   
   content), and again, a tautology: the   
   endeavour of mind to bring itself together   
   in general and in all particulars, insofar as   
   mind is capable. This array of factors is to   
   me independent of any specific content,   
   and it merely is favoured by some   
   religions, perhaps all religions, more or   
   less, though some religions do enjoy an   
   advantage, in that they focus directly and   
   intentionally on such factors, with the   
   content serving as mere vessel, mere   
   embodiment (spirit comes to flesh), even   
   as mere embellishment. Some religions   
   go so far as to bend themselves   
   backward to negate themselves (the Raft,   
   the fishtrap), and explicitly command the   
   release of themselves when their job is   
   done. Some religions explicitly indulge in   
   contradictions, just to make themselves   
   and their followers aware that any   
   pronouncement is partial, temporary,   
   conventional and not final, not absolute.   
   They overtly present themselves as the   
   mediation that transcends itself and   
   suppresses itself (Hegel: die sich selbst   
   aufhebende Vermittlung) from the start.   
   They are built to undercut themselves as   
   they go along, mere means and not the   
   end.   
      
   Well, I have expanded perhaps too much   
   on a hunch, a flight of fancy not based on   
   scientific evidence. I should stop and   
   apologise for the overextended badinage.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)