XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 9/15/2016 6:30 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:   
   >   
   > "liaM"  wrote in message   
   > news:nrd050$k53$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 9/15/2016 3:35 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> "liaM"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:nrcpob$f18$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>  Really.  That's the key.  Selective blindness.   
   >>> Ned   
   >>   
   >> Selective implies choice.  They're beyond choice.  All they   
   >> are is  "I want. I want." (Wm Blake)   
   >>   
   >   
   >  Why, for God's sake, would a mass of cells, tissues, and organs   
   > ORGANIZE itself into a being, if not for "I want. I want."?   
   >   
   >  It's primeval. It's the most basic tendency in molecular   
   > organization to adapt to the vagaries of carbon-based life.   
   >   
   > Ned   
   >   
      
   Nolo contendere, Ned -  hahahahaha   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)