XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Tang Huyen  wrote:   
   > On 11/7/2016 4:15 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
   >   
   >> Which, of course, would also mean unlearning Taoism. Is it possible,   
   >> in a practical living sense, to experience without any framework   
   >> whatsoever? This would be Tang's "unestablished mind", but can one   
   >> live in the fractious world that way, or must one lock oneself in an   
   >> ivory tower for that?   
   >   
   > As I have written lots of time, the regimen of   
   > survival and the regimen of grace are unrelated.   
      
   The two are entirely related, even though they are entirely "separate".   
   The regimen of grace/heaven/unseen is that from which survival derives.  It   
   is the crucial flaw of Man that we imitate like monkeys, or cargo-cult   
   natives, we mimic the effects in order to recreate that which caused them.   
   It's like connecting the bottom of a toilet to the fresh-water intake and   
   calling that the regimen of survival.  It doesn't work, take a census in   
   any graveyard, the regimen of survival does not work because it has nothing   
   to do with the cause of survival, which is the regimen of grace.   
      
   > If one is concerned with survival, grace won't   
   > come. It comes when one does nothing,   
   > including for survival.   
      
   Can't argue against that.   
      
   > But when navigating the   
   > world, some modicum of care is useful, even if   
   > bypassable if one so wants. Survival may not be   
   > assured. The Stoic sage is in a state of apatheia,   
   > which combined insensitivity and unconcern,   
   > though admiration for God's creation is still   
   > active.   
      
   Now you've gone silly again, go figure; maybe that's what is meant by the   
   TTC's injunction to "stop when the work is done".   
      
   >   
   > < language is one of fear, desire and survival   
   > addictions. the true self language doesn't   
   > concern itself with those things.>> Jen.   
   >   
   > It looks too idealistic, for the sage not to be   
   > bothered about survival.   
      
   It isn't, the sage lives within total faith of what he believes, not   
   because he's a blind follower, but because he constantly sees it   
   actualizing around him in real time.   
      
   > Of course the sage is   
   > still bound to physical and social laws,   
      
   Not to social laws, which are simply specifications of social norms and   
   standards, only to their physical implementations similar to the physical   
   laws like gravity.  Which might be what you meant, or not.   
      
   > but   
   > otherwise not bound by anything, including   
   > social norms and standards. ZZ goes all out   
   > making that point, perhaps with a large dose of   
   > artistic license. But caricature is truer than   
   > straight talk. (All the usual disclaimers ...)   
   >   
   > Tang Huyen   
   >   
      
   If the caricature is truer than straight talk, something's messed up.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)