Beautiful explanation. It's not martial arts. It's Tennis !!
Barry serves, Judy returns it beautifully, but then guess what there's no Barry for the play, he leaves right after he serves, he defaults. Game, set, match to Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > As this under-appreciated post received almost no attention, > > I thought I would reply to it. It was posted after > > authfriend had maxed out her allotment. I am not going to > > directly imply that the timing of this post of turq's took > > that into account, because I have no idea what motivated > > either its production or time of posting, but I suspect she > > might have something to say about it, > > I'll just note that this is a long-established pattern > with Barry that everyone here recognizes. > > > so replying to it now as we head into a > > weekend might bring some more responses eventually â" or > > maybe not. It certainly is provocative as it is a direct > > attack on certain 'deficiencies' found in those caught up > > in the spiritual rat race. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Sometimes, just for the fun of it, I try to relate > > > my early training in the martial arts to the > > > enlightenment process. It's easier than it sounds. > > > > > For example, what one longs for in a martial arts > > > situation is an opponent who has no self control. > > > Such a person can be provoked into becoming angry, > > > and thus losing their balance. > > > > Why would one long for an opponent that has no self control? > > Good point, but there's an even more fundamental > problem here--well, lots of 'em, but let's start > with this one: Why would one perceive a person > who claims to be enlightened as an "opponent" in > the first place? > > > > In the martial arts, > > > he who has lost his balance has lost the match. > > *What* match? What's the fight about? > > The most revealing thing about this post is how it > doesn't occur to Barry that these questions might > ever arise. He seems to take it for granted that > trying to "win" a "match" with a person who claims > to be enlightened is such a normal and obvious > thing to do that it requires no justification. > > Anyway, if we can resolve the issue of why Barry > perceives the process of enlightenment to be some > sort of hostile competition, we encounter another > huge obstacle: the analogy to a martial-arts match > in which Barry and an enlightenment-claimer are > opposing fighters doesn't work, at least as far as > FFL goes, because there's almost never any actual > combat, just the preliminaries, in which Barry > tries to put his perceived opponent "off-balance." > > (Note that *any* response to one of Barry's "prods" > or "pokes," no matter how cool and collected and/or > humorous and lighthearted, will be portrayed by > Barry as showing that the opponent is "off-balance." > And if there's no response, he's very likely to > claim that its absence is due to the opponent being > "off-balance" as well.) > > In any case, once the enlightenment-claimer has > responded, Barry quickly backs out of any actual > combat. So the "prods" and "pokes" were never > designed to be the opening moves in a match; > Barry never intended to do any actual fighting. > > If he tried that in the context of martial arts, > it would be considered a shameful default, and > *he* would be the loser. If he did this in a class, > he'd almost certainly be thrown out in disgrace. > > And goodness knows he'd be laughed at for the rest > of his life if he tried to claim victory after > running away from the fight he tried to start. > > Given these fundamental problems, I don't think I > have anything to add to Xeno's thoughtful comments > about the rest of the post. >
