XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   news:gdek1cpg3eqc9vgdet341t8sn0g2sk3es8@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > "dagnabit" wrote:   
   >   
   > >"{:-])))"  wrote in message   
   > >news:nd2k1chnhjkjvjrlr338d40fe3ruv77tq7@4ax.com...   
   > >>   
   > >> dagnabit wrote with uncertain certainty:   
   > >> > Wilson wrote in response to noname's paradigm:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> If something exists but is not manifest, where is it?   
   > >> >   
   > >> >if I understand correctly, everything exists either in manifestation   
   > >> >in relative physical reality or in potential as in what is called the   
   > >> >absolute. we only provide the correct conditions for things in   
   > >> >potential to become actualized in the physical.   
   > >>   
   > >> I'd just written something using some of the same words in   
   > >> a different thread which was the same by another name.   
   > >>   
   > >> Using an either/or paradigm how ever-is, it can be said, narrower.   
   > >> Using a both-and as welling as a neither-nor can be even m'ore than.   
   > >>   
   > >> >as an example, when you have all the pieces of a model airplane   
   > >> >there is a potential model there and you provide the actions   
   > >> >necessary for it to become an actual model.   
   > >>   
   > >> And the actual model, which was to be built, did not exist   
   > >> until it was actually built, no matter how much potential it had.   
   > >>   
   > >> Hence a quibble can may be neither with the model nor the building   
   > >> head-butt, rather, with the words being used to suggest a suggestion.   
   > >>   
   > >> >thinking that we can actually create anything may be backwards   
   > >> >thinking. anything that can be created Is already waiting in   
   > >> >potential form.   
   > >>   
   > >> To say, everything exists, potentially, in nonbeing,   
   > >> undifferentiated, awaiting to be differentiated by those   
   > >> who have a mind to give birth to some form of a slice of a whole   
   > >> carved out of what isn't there as in the beginning can be said.   
   > >>   
   > >> >bob dylan once said that he didn't think that he wrote any of   
   > >> >his songs, but that they were already out there somewhere in   
   > >> >the ether and he just somehow tuned into them.   
   > >>   
   > >> In the Chuang-tzu are many stories about a fine tune tuned in two.   
   > >>   
   > >> - as the wind cried and howled among the branches, merry   
   > >   
   > >yet I'm still potentially un-potentialized   
   > >in that my potential could go in any   
   > >given potential direction. at any given   
   > >potential time.   
   >   
   >   
   > This would assume that whatever you are referring to when you say   
   > "I'm" has no inherent defining nature that would necessarily condition   
   > experience simply due to its limits. If what we experience is a direct   
   > expression of our conditioned being, to potentially become anything   
   > you would already have to potentially be everything, which is to say,   
   > be utterly void of any quality, attribute or nature, including void of   
   > potentiality, because to have any such quality, attribute or nature   
   > would be to have limit.   
   >   
   > (I've been taking Tang lessons, does it show?)   
      
   sort of the way alan watts explains things at times   
   when he does the gurdjieff "you are the all and the   
   everything" thing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)