Gil, would/could you equate your “attitude about reality” with my term “a state”?
On Oct 28, 3:07 pm, [email protected] wrote: > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
