Yes, I'm way back here in the postings. Comments
below.
> DM said:
> But to transcend dualism do we not need to be able
> to embrace an
> understanding of language that only divides a
> reality that is ultimately
> one. And what is so difficult about that?
>
> dmb says:
> I think there is a difference between grasping a
> philsophical idea and the
> experience of Nirvana, if that's what you're saying.
> I mean, linguists
> aren't necessarily mystics.
dmb, might you also be saying that to get stuck
on thinking or valuing an experience on the
intellectual level only, is to dismiss the other three
levels, and thus, this whole small self, let alone
dismissing a big self, too. Intellectual experience
alone is impossible, but narrowly focused (as
linguists strictly speaking to make a point in the
line of thinking I believe your suggesting) on
intellectual is not to experience social, biological,
inorganic - I mean a real out-of-body experience such
a strict intellectual level experience would be. I
would venture to say without realizing all static
patterns of value (all levels) in our direct
experience is non-realizing of dq (direct experience).
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
