Gentlemen, People are not so uni-dimensional, or easily classified. I think this is a fine game-- like Clue. But trying to "sort" this way obscures clarity. Why bother discussing illusion and duality, and then assert these ideas and definitions, unless indeed it is a means to better understand self, others and the world around you. Which makes sense, but still dualistic, imo. I can assure you that analytical people can also be keenly intuitive, as an example. So the question is, can one actually exist in non-duality with no illusions? Meanwhile, I'm making the nacho dip, and pulled pork sandwiches. Be well.. ~ k
--- On Sun, 2/6/11, SteveW <[email protected]> wrote: From: SteveW <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Buddhist Personality Types To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 10:27 AM --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > Steve, > > Replace > > 'Hate type' with 'solid type' > > 'Greed type' with 'peculiar type', > > then, does the following make sense to you? > > --ED > > Hi ED. Yes, there do seem to be parallels. Solids also seem to share characteristics of what Buddhists call "Discursive-Types". The important thing, imo, is to keep in mind that all such systems of classification are only provisionally useful as upaya, and should not be reified into self-contained boxes, should not be reified into a "self". The advantage of the Buddhist schemata is that it just focuses on Aversion, Attraction, Confusion, Intellectual Analysis, Clear Seeing and Trust. These are the basic ways in which the mind react to phenomena. All of the other traits that can be associated with these are secondary, imo. Intellectual Analysis is associated with the Discursive-Type. The Discursive-Type is obsessed with logical analysis and conceptual classifications. But, as Plotinus noted, brilliant intellectual anaysis can never apprehend the uncompounded. Logical anaysis creates conceptual boxes and dividing-lines where none actually exist. They are very useful from the relative point of view, but they are ultimately misleading, imo. It all comes back to The 3 Signs of Being: All phenomena are fluid, not static. Nothing has separate, independant, contained, inherent self- existence. If we do not realize the first two, we suffer. If we do realize the first two, then we can rest in the Unborn. All upaya are provisional rafts for crossing the stream. Even the preceding sentence is just upaya. Who wants to cross the stream? Steve > > >
