XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> "Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> news:b3819272-7512-c60b-6b77-2b84b8650d96@gmail.com...
>> On 9/14/2016 9:29 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>>> Not too bad a quote. Too bad you weren't there to help her
>>> get rid of all basis that she stands and depends upon.
>>>
>>> She tries to "undo everything to redo everything" to be "all new"
>>> so "no trace is left", and there "shall be in myself nothing fixed".
>>>
>>> Yet she does this firmly standing on "my God", whom she sees
>>> as a "destructive spirit" and origin of "your creature" (herself),
>>> in hopes that "I shall become in you" and "take in your hand
>>> all the forms that will be convenient to your intentions."
>>>
>>> This is a variant of the famous and widely quoted (often by
>>> scoundrels) Bible verse, "Thy will be done."
>>>
>>> Because everyone who has quoted "Thy will be done", or sought
>>> to empty themselves of everything to be "all new", has lurking in
>>> their little monkey brains a firm and unshakeable idea of what
>>> God is and what God wants. And therein lies all the sins of
>>> mankind and religion.
>>
>> The quote is from Fénelon, so it should be "he".
>> But what he says is distilled from his teacher,
>> Madame Guyon, so the below applies to her also.
>>
>> He has to deal with the Church, which is
>> breathing down his neck, to put it mildly, so
>> some masquerade is needed, but if "no trace is
>> left", and there "shall be in myself nothing
>> fixed", what footing does he need? The
>> openness, flexibility and plasticity, which he
>> preaches and (presumably) attains, scarcely
>> admit of any ground or abode. Perhaps he has
>> lurking in his little monkey brains a firm and
>> unshakeable idea of what God is and what God
>> wants, but if you read him, that idea of God has
>> not determination whatsoever. When he says "I
>> shall become in you" and "take in your hand all
>> the forms that will be convenient to your
>> intentions", he actually is talking about himself,
>> in closed circle, squirting out into himself and
>> oozing into existence as a creation of himself,
>> per the cycle of the Stoic God.
>>
>
> Taking one's self as a basis would be as shaky
> and perilous as taking God as a basis. What is it
> that you don't get about "no basis"? It ought to be
> simple. Like the verse that enlightened Hui Neng.
> Ie. Are you standing on something, depending on
> something, assuming something? Then you are
> WRONG. Throw it all out, and if you can't do that
> then carry it out. But if you are left with anything
> after that, then your job is not done.
>
> Ned
>
>
I can't say you're wrong Ned, but I think you're making it sound more harsh
than it is.
The point is that we never know what is next, and we don't really have to,
we each carry with us an "ingrained" understanding of what we are, our
values, the lengths we will go to in order to choose right instead of
sneaking out when the pressure is on. We think we need other stuff, but we
don't. When you found yourself at the far end of the birth canal, you
didn't know much. Given that you made it here with nothing, it your mind
hasn't calcified or crystallized or whatever, if you can still think, you
can get to the next place. The clues and the tools are always provided.
It's guaranteed. Until you die.
Thing is, you don't have to throw it all out. The idea that you have to
throw it all out is the first thing to throw out. No need to clean house,
maybe somebody will take it to the dump for you, after they go to all the
trouble of stealing it from you; but if you pack it up and carry it around,
your back will get tired for no good reason.
Point isn't throwing it away, it's not needing it, not being attached to
it.
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
