XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/26/2016 7:13 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
      
   > I believe what Tang means by "destroying the ground on which they   
   > stand" is the letting go of any thought that establishes self,   
   > whatever form that may take. Only the person standing on the ground,   
   > which is self-made, can destroy it, by letting go of the thought (or   
   > complex thought-bundle, more often) that *is* the ground.   
   >   
   > The supposed technique of testing claims made and positions held   
   > would, if genuine, only be for the purpose of making apparent to those   
   > making or holding them how false and flimsy they are, so that said   
   > persons might accordingly let go of them. That's the theory. The flaw   
   > in the theory, or its practice anyway, is that the one doing the   
   > "testing" is themselves making a subtle claim: that they have superior   
   > awareness, stand on no ground themselves, are exercising tough-love   
   > compassion, and so on. Adding disclaimers is a method of pre-emptive   
   > self-absolution.   
   >   
   > The mind... what's it like, eh?   
      
   If one tests others on the basis (on the ground) of one's   
   norms and standards, which may or may not be shared   
   by those to whom one directs one's testing, then one   
   obviously stands one's ground in flinging the tests at   
   them. If one merely takes the norms and standards as   
   proclaimed in no self-stated, uncertain terms and   
   without disclaimers by some others and applies them   
   back to their authors, one does not stand one's ground   
   in criticising them, but stands their ground in criticising   
   them, in closed circle, in their own freely and voluntarily   
   declaimed norms and standards. In a sense, one merely   
   tries to raise their consciousness (as feminists used to   
   say half a century ago) to themselves about their living   
   up to their own norms and standards, or not. One is not   
   trying to shake them (up or away) from their own norms   
   and standards, even less to destroy them, rather one   
   tries to stage a self-confrontation from their own side to   
   help them see themselves in front of their own norms   
   and standards, without injecting one's own norms and   
   standards into the sandbox. One merely holds up a   
   mirror to help them see themselves in front of their own   
   norms and standards, without mixing oneself in the   
   affair. If they want not to be so tested, they can quit   
   proffering their norms and standards, or add   
   disclaimers, or simply live up to them, in self-righteous   
   justice and dignity, to avoid any appearance of   
   hypocrisy, much less any reality of it.   
      
   The mind can be devilishly clever in devising ways to   
   defend and protect itself, but it can also be ruthlessly   
   honest to itself and open to itself, without need for   
   external help. In both cases, it can be tested as to its   
   sincerity. We here on Usenet are limited to mere words   
   on the screen, but they can yet be quite effective in   
   smoking out the poseurs, fakers and charlatans. A few   
   words will do.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)