An interesting viewpoint, Lawson; many thanks. I have no idea whether a continuum of values is actually different than multiple discrete ones, but I strongly suspect they are actually the same. It seems to come down to the particle-vs.-wave viewpoints of what is actually a wavicle. By the same token, all the possible points of view are also Only One of Us, not intellectually enumarable perhaps, but still whole-heartedly, self-ticklingly BE-able.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > But a sutra is valid on all possible frequencies, to use your analogy. A > continuum of values is different than multiple discrete values, though in the > real world, "continuous" merely means "so many that they are uncountable for > all practical purposes". Even so, enumerating all the possible meanings of a > sutra, according to the definition below, would require that you also > enumerate all the possible points of view that the sutra could be viewed > from, which is still "impossible for all practical purposes." > > L > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 9:46 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "A sUtra is a compilation of aphorisms that expresses the > > > > > essence of all knowledge in a minimum of words. It must be > > > > > universally applicable to all the faces of consciousness > > > > > and faultless in its linguistic presentation." > > > > > > > > In one word, "sutra" is thus synonymous with "fiction." > > > > > > In a phrase, a sutra must be "spontaneously capable of sustaining > > > multiple entendre." > > > > * * Nicely said, Vaj! Somewhat as a pun tickles itself and laughs > > simultaneously on many frequencies :-) > > >
