XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: cuddly@mindless.com
On 9/16/2016 11:43 AM, noname wrote:
> 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?
I know you by what you have written here.
>
> What do you mean by "feeding the ghost"?
>
I don't know quite what it means, that's why I asked. What about you
seems to me to imply a ghost, or am I joking? Fishing in the dark ?
Fishing because I'm a troll that believes in the unexpected ?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
