On Oct 27, 8:07 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear e – (Eric?...I’m not sure what name Molly greeted you with
> either…)
My name is Eric...my firends call me e.
> Also, my experiences with Allan never found him being fundamentalist
> in the sense of his being a parrot quoting the Buddha of this era
> exclusively nor gratuitously either. Nor did I find him to be a
> philosophical nor theological ideologue in this respect. He at once
> was well read and able to recite countless texts if/when appropriate.
> When he spoke, he, in my view, made a nice synthesis between his own
> world view and what he had studied. Here, sadly again, I take off my
> apologist’s hat! ;-)
:-) No need to take off your hat, it's great to have dharma friends.
You said:
> I more adhere to the Mind Only school.
And so this goes without saying:
> Continuing addressing your use of Nirvana, ...it is just that, a
> state, not a thing or a place as the terms are used in common
> parlance.
What if it is not a state of something (i.e. a mind) also? I am not
saying one way or another, just leaving a wide open query.
> I seldom discuss things in dogmatic terms mostly due to
> the subjective nature of words. Case in point, even the link you
> provided was ambivalent about equating luminous mind and nirvana
> saying that the former can be transformed into the latter!
I posted the wiki for others not versed in Buddhist lingo. I know this
is not a Buddhist group. I thought it did a good job of showing the
history of the term.
> Thanks for adding your insights!
You too Orn!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" 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
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
