Is this better?

"One may say neither that the one mind is prior and all dharmas
posterior nor that all dharmas are prior and the one mind
posterior.... If one derives all dharmas from the one mind, this is a
vertical relationship. If the mind all at once contains all dharmas,
this is a horizontal relationship. Neither vertical nor horizontal
will do. All one can say is that the mind is all dharmas, and all
dharmas are the mind. Therefore the relationship is neither vertical
nor horizontal, neither the same nor different. It is obscure, subtle
and profound in the extreme. Knowledge cannot know it, nor can words
speak it. Herein lies the reason for its being called "the realm of
the inconceivable."

Chih-i (or Zhiyi, 538-597), founder of Chinese T'ien-t'ai Buddhism,
quoted by Jacqueline I. Stone, Original Enlightenment and the
Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism, Kuroda Institute,
University of Hawai'i Press, 1999, p. 179

(Excerpted from


On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 13-juil.-07, à 17:02, David Nyman a écrit :
> >  But since the One is not
> > what most people would consider a person (let alone a god), another
> > term would be better.  I wonder what?
> I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless you
> are not lobian;  even lobian non-machine cannot name it).
> Bruno
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to