XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
   >In the old days, Jen/dagnabit wrote to Evelyn about Fu,   
   >3 Dec 2003:   
   >   
   ><What is really at issue here ? Is it really the way Fooey posts,   
   >or is it the reactions that he gets ? These reactions are all   
   >voluntary. Fooey is not over at your house with a gun at your   
   >head forcing you to respond to his posts. You have taken   
   >what he has done personally and the only one who will   
   >derive grief and allow voluntary self-sabotage is you by   
   >taking things personally. Even if someone intends something   
   >towards you personally, you are never forced to accept it as   
   >such. It is not necessarily Fooey's actions that are suspect   
   >here but the motivational reasons behind your and other's   
   >complete and utter willingness to be affected by what he   
   >does. What type of juice are you getting out of this volleying   
   >back and forth of what others do to you ?>>   
   >   
   >Elsewhere, Evelyn herself totally agreed when she wrote to   
   >Pete/cupcake, 25 Jul 2001:   
   >   
   >"I only have the power you give me in your own mind."   
      
   Looks to be two years prior to what Jen wrote:   
      
   I imagine she became what I call, involved,   
   after having been what I call, evolved.   
      
   That happens on occasion.   
      
   >Fu himself said, 25 Sep 2005:   
   >   
   ><some reflection about my own,   
   >and it's always interesting to see   
   >how such things are taken personally.   
   >By umm..."buddhists"...>>   
      
   I see myself as I am involved at times, totally.   
      
   At other times there was no volunteer who voluntarily   
   gave away some power over to so-called others.   
      
   When signing up for Boot Camp, I thought I knew.   
   After the first day of getting our real DIs, I wasn't sure.   
   A few minutes of reflection and I again volunteered.   
      
   Sometimes people don't know what they're getting into.   
      
   When dragged down to various levels, they are dragged.   
   Some have no idea what goes on before the buck stops.   
      
   Heights and depths of enlightenment can be measured.   
      
   >The morale is that is one does not give power to others over   
   >one's mind and does not take what others say personally, at   
   >least regarding mere words on the screen, nobody has power   
   >over one.   
      
   Wishful thinking and rationalizations of ten a maze me two.   
      
   > One can always give no reply or just laugh one's   
   >teeth out at clumsy attempts to rile one up by mere words on   
   >the screen.   
      
   If you can always do that, then you can do that.   
      
   If one is moved by words on a screen, one is moved.   
   These words, right here, move you.   
      
   If someone else can be unmoved, then he or she can.   
   Mere words mean nothing, by defintion.   
   They don't move anyone, ever.   
      
   Not everyone is as evolved at all times   
   as they were at some previous time.   
      
   Consciousness cycles.   
   Most people become involved and some never evolve.   
   Some folks trip out and never return.   
      
   > Everybody is protected by asynchronicity on   
   >Usenet. If one cannot handle such freedom, one should not   
   >be here.   
      
   Some have no idea what they're getting in two   
   and it's too late by the time they dew.   
      
   What little spiritual awareness they had, evaporates.   
      
   And what little compassion so called enlightened people had   
   is demonstrated over and over, by their mere words.   
      
   The Real Enlightened Scots always and never hop.   
      
   They don't drag people down to some perverse level.   
      
   Trolls aren't enlightened.   
   And the enlightened are not trolls.   
      
   - by definition   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)