XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
      
   >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,   
      
   Host. Mind. What manner of duality is this?   
      
   Does one carve to uncarve?   
      
   Take apart the puzzle to put it together again?   
      
   Of course. Naturally. That's why jig-saws dance   
   and sing and march the tunes of their different drummers.   
      
   >and that this   
   >coming together in harmony of the various   
   >faculties is called "it works".   
      
   Children play.   
   Some play hide and seek.   
      
   They are said to know the Way.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Wu-xin. Wu-hsin.   
   Such jargon surfaces at times in mind.   
      
   To see the picture on the jig-saw puzzle box,   
   first, get rid of mind, if one doesn't mind.   
      
   Then, bricks are no longer blocks.   
   And a mirror has no dust to be a mote nor a beam   
   to land and take hold. To grasp and release.   
      
   To have a beam in one's eye and to sigh   
   is not as good as to be on a beam in the balance.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Each member of the body has its requirements.   
      
   Some people are the heads. Some are the hands.   
   In this, so-called, mystical body, each part   
   plays its part in the symphony of all.   
      
   All in all, all goes all in.   
      
   Then, the jig-saw puzzle becomes a card game.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The task of a great therapist is to get rid of clients.   
   A good doctor wants to get rid of patients.   
      
   Healthy people don't need no religion,   
   nor spirituality. They're too busy living life.   
      
   They can be said to be having a ball.   
   Some have at least two.   
      
   Such a saying can be off the w'all.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Taoism can be a merry go   
   on a round and round down a stream of thoughts.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Hey, Rocky!   
      
   - a winkle of the bull in a wrinkle ironing out   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)