XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
liaM wrote:
> 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 ?
What makes you think you are knowing me?
What do you mean by "feeding the ghost"?
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
