XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   liaM  wrote:   
   > 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)   
   >   
      
   It does imply choice, but not necessarily the same choice I refer to as   
   "free-choice", instead it is a hidden choice, made by laziness, fearful   
   laziness, which would rather roll over and go back to sleep.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)