XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   liaM  wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Some desires are beyond simple desire, some arise from the very root of   
   what we are, and unless we fulfill such needs we cannot become what we have   
   always been.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)