I believe Nirvanna is misinterpreted. To me it is not a state of peace and tranquility or at - one -ment. Thus it is not the absense of conflict. Rather I beleve it is an attitude about the reality of reality as a mixed bag often permeated by internal and external conflict. It is an attitude akin to Molly Blooms 50 page stream of consciousness soliloquy at the end of James Joyces' Ulysses in which this long suffering but highly engaged in life woman recapitualates her life and to it all ends up saying: "Yes, yes, yes, yes, again yes. " To me her words are the quintessence between a realistic understanding of the term "peace of mind."
-----Original Message----- From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:01 pm Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Achieving Free Will: a Buddhist Perspective What if it [Nirvana] is not a state of something (i.e. a mind) also? am not aying one way or another, just leaving a wide open query.” – e IF that were the case, then it (Nirvana): 1. Would not be Nirvana . Would be an appearance. n Oct 28, 2:52 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: 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! -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Minds Eye"" group. o post to this group, send email to [email protected] o unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] or more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
