XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Ned Ludd  wrote:   
   >   
   > "Wilson"  wrote in message   
   > news:nregc5$1h7$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 9/14/2016 4:51 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   
   >>   
   >> When are you going to let go of the idea of letting go?   
   >>   
   >   
   >  What idea are you talking about?   
   >   
   > Ned   
   >   
   >   
      
     Games, you're playing fucking *games*, Ned.  Fucking waste of   
   time.  Stay asleep forever, it's what you obviously desire more than   
   anything else.  If you wake up, things might get a little more serious than   
   some occasional gum-flapping.  That would obviously be a bad thing, much   
   too frightening for the likes of folks hereabouts.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)