XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Tang Huyen  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You're a funny guy, Tang.   
      
   >   
   > 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   
   >   
      
   About this testing business.  It seems to me that it isn't necessary to set   
   oneself up as a teacher or tester, that simply being oneself and talking   
   with people is sufficient to allow them to learn from you anything it turns   
   out you can teach them.  But if you let them off the hook, allow them to   
   contradict themselves, or get away with some clever wording to avoid some   
   point, it's funny, but that seems like the action of someone who doesn't   
   care about the person s/he's talking with, as much as s/he values that   
   person's regard for them.  If they can take themselves off the hook,   
   they've reached forward on the way, and if they can't take themselves off   
   the hook, they've created some dissonance that might help them not get   
   hooked next time should they resolve it.  All of which is a long way of   
   saying that it works iitself out unless somebody fibs to themself, and if   
   they do, that works itself out too.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)