XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism
From: cuddly@mindless.com
On 9/14/2016 10:51 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> "brian mitchell" wrote in message
> news:p49jtbh9f8tghj9fd9gg2iarmdilhb92s2@4ax.com...
>> "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.
>>
>> The verse that enlightened Hui Neng refers to an
>> unsupported thought, which, when this came up
>> before, I suggested widening out to an unsupported
>> mind. Anyway, when you speak about not being left
>> with anything at all, you presumably don't include
>> an absence of awareness in this? Just awareness
>> unowned?
>>
>
> Oh as soon as we're aware of our awareness, then
> it's got to be abandoned, thrown out, left behind. As
> soon as you conceive of nothingness, it's got to be
> let go of. What was the saying, "Better you should
> give rise to a view of existence as big as Mt. Sumeru,
> than that you produce a view of nothingness as small
> as a mustard seed."
>
> The idea of "no basis" can be abandoned also.
> Certainly it's better to abandon it than to cling to it.
> Self-annihilating ideas seem to be the stock in trade
> of the best Buddhists.
>
> Ned
>
The oddest feature of taoist-zen-quietist afficionados
is how they manage to be blind to the greed inherent in
what they propose for themselves and others.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
