XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: kittyp2060@hotmail.com   
      
   "noname"  wrote in message news:nvdko9$bnu$2@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   > dagnabit  wrote:   
   > > "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?)   
   > >   
   > > so there would be no need for potential in one that is   
   > > already everything? I think that nisargadatta maharaj   
   > > was trying once to explain that in terms of the absolute   
   > > even though the absolute is spoken of in terms of being   
   > > infinite potential, so that the relative manifestation can   
   > > effulge from it, yet since it is all potential it would indeed   
   > > need to be also void of potential too, as such.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > Potential isn't the trick.  Actuality is the punchline, the joke's on you,   
   > what's the joke?  There's so much potential we can't even point to it all.   
   > How does this bit or that bit of potential get actualized?  By needing to.   
   > Why?  Because somebody has a hole in him that needs filled by something   
   > that shape.  It's as automatic as water filling itself in after you remove   
   > a bucket-full.  Constant cosmic rebalancing karma-style.  How many people   
   > can stay sufficiently on top of daily life to be able to recall, when   
   > something unexpected happens, what their head was going on about just   
   > before weird happenings?  Not that many apparently, or there'd be more   
   > people awake to what's going on as it's going on.   
   >   
   > It's a hoot.  People like Ned think they have a handle on things.  They'll   
   > maybe go around half cocky and then blam, something unexpected jumps into   
   > their face, and they're all mystified why what should happen.  Duh.  It   
   > isn't like manifestation happens slow and where you can see it, it happens   
   > and events-itself into your face.   
   >   
   > Folks either know what I'm talking about or not.   
   >   
   > email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   I have always found Ned to be delightfully full-on cocky myself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)