Bill, you say:BB: Were Arjuna of right mind, he would be dead to self and all earthly cares,his mind clearly fixed on the Absolute.
REPLY:
But according to my understanding of the Gita the idea is that to be of
the right mind is to clearly fixed on your earthly task, on what you
are doing right
Joe,
There's never time to say it all, and I often say it sloppy.
Bill, you say:BB: Were Arjuna of right mind, he would be dead to
self and all earthly cares,his mind clearly fixed on the
Absolute.REPLY:JR:But according to my understanding of the Gita the
idea is that to be of the right
Bill, i sent this offline but got bounced by one of your filters. Well,
it's short.
[[ I don't doubt your sincerity, only your California style dharma. ]]
:-) I've never been to California, so can't comment on that attribution.
But i've noticed that the New Age epithet is often useful as an
And if you
investigate Mahayana Buddhist texts seriously
gary F.
:=)
Bill Bailey
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Gary, thanks for this quote, which i'm pretty sure i haven't seen
before -- i wouldn't have thought Peirce would talk about a
Buddhisto-christian religion!
CP 1.673. . .. the supreme commandment of the Buddhisto-christian
religion is, to generalize, to complete the whole system even until
Bill,
I'm on this list because i read Peirce and take him seriously as a
writer whose concepts have some bearing on the conduct of a life -- any
life -- and my working assumption is that others are here for similar
reasons. Likewise, my interest in the bodhisattva concept arises from my
reading
Gary F.
I don't doubt your sincerity, only your California style dharma. You might
find Dan Leighton's Compassionate Faces more useful than Dogen; I don't know
how you got from Dogen to here. In any case, Leighton precedes you in the
New Age applied bodhisattva conception by noting several
Gary,
I would tend to agree with your analysis below, while I was especially
responsive to your interpreting the Gita in terms of what is real (as
opposed to actual), that it refers to types (not tokens)You wrote:
GF:. . . . . . . . . . . . . In Peircean terms, the scripture must refer
Gary F.
I'm not going the respond at any length here because I don't think my side
belongs here. Yours, as a Peircean concern might.
Bill,
[[ To deny what I said of the Bhagavad Gita, you have to deny what is
written there. ]]
Well, if you choose (or are predisposed) to read it as an apology
