XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   news:dk9l1cl2e9sp6ve7n7fgrlts0ol5tt9udo@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > "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.   
   >   
   > I don't really have any clue about this. I was just intrigued by the   
   > logical implication of infinite potential. I suppose a state of total   
   > unknowing --if there could be such a state-- would be one of infinite   
   > potential, but would "unknowing" count as an attribute?   
   > Don't know.   
      
   it's been said that the absolute state entertains all possibilities.   
   unknowing is an attribute, isn't one, both and neither. it's why   
   it can't be nailed down or framed with concepts, they just don't   
   wash there.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)