XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: cuddly@mindless.com
On 9/16/2016 1:07 AM, noname wrote:
> liaM wrote:
>> On 9/15/2016 11:56 AM, noname wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But repeating stuff and personal theories ad nauseam doesn't make
>> for appetizing reading :)
>>
>>
>
> Maybe I should stop writing it then. What do you think? I think I've
> wasted a lot of time here for nothing.
Well knowing you, you know what you are doing here. Might it be feeding
the ghost ?
>
> Nobody here has the balls to awaken anyway, as demonstrated by the local
> discourse. Everybody knows exactly how it is. People who know this are
> incapable of learning this because they already know it, even though what
> they know they have to keep going to church to remind themselves of,
> because it isn't backed up by the reality they live in every day.
>
> Nobody is interested in what I have to say? Speak up loud and clear,
> time's a-wastin'.
>
You wanna I repeat myself, uh?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
