XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Wilson  wrote:   
   > On 9/15/2016 12:43 PM, 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   
   >   
   > Letting go.  Letting go of letting go.  Letting go of letting go of   
   > letting go.   
   >   
   > It's all Oroboros, all the way down.   
   >   
   > Boo!   
   >   
   >   
      
   Yeahbut you don't always have to let go.  You can also hold fast to the   
   center.  Of course if you hold fast to the center before you find it, you   
   might get dizzy on the spinaround.  In fact that's one certain way of   
   awakening, if you survive that long, and the practice that gets you there   
   on that route is "get spun around less".   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)