--- In [email protected], "SteveW" <eugnostos2000@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi ED. Yes, there do seem to be parallels. Solids also seem to
> > share characteristics of what Buddhists call "Discursive-Types".
Yes.
Definitions of discursive on the Web:
* dianoetic: proceeding to a conclusion by reason or argument rather
than intuition * digressive: (of e.g. speech and writing) tending to
depart from the main point or cover a wide range of subjects; "amusingly
digressive with satirical thrusts at women's fashions among other
things"; "a rambling discursive book"; "his excursive remarks"; "a
rambling speech about this and that"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%\
3Fs%3Ddiscursive&sa=X&ei=Fg5QTeKKMI-6sAO3n5WpCg&ved=0CA8QpAMoAA&usg=AFQj\
CNGT8EJT-jvasfLbhfB4hNrj3zUdQQ>
o discursively - in a rambling manner
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%\
3Fs%3Ddiscursively&sa=X&ei=Fg5QTeKKMI-6sAO3n5WpCg&ved=0CBAQpAMoAQ&usg=AF\
QjCNHi4lt7M3uT5TNPk8jK4ghd8yPiUQ>
o means to wonder from one topic to another; to skim over
apparently unconnected
hs.csisd.org/calendar/attachments/6653_1224252684.doc
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://hs.csisd.org/calendar/attachments/66\
53_1224252684.doc&sa=X&ei=Fg5QTeKKMI-6sAO3n5WpCg&ved=0CBMQpAMoBA&usg=AFQ\
jCNEuwIhl7gJ3z7IZpF5rlXQ37NB8yw>
> 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".
Yes.
Also, different classification have different objectives.
The classification of vital/solid/peculiar in
http://www.shivayoga.org/html/vitalpeculiarsolid.html
<http://www.shivayoga.org/html/vitalpeculiarsolid.html> corresponds to
body/mind/feelings focus of the individual.
In general, studying the characteristics of solid and peculiar types
(and vital too) can be quite helpful to men and women struggling to
understand the attitudes and behaviors of their partners.
> 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.
This (discursive) classification is beautiful and pertinent to the
objective of understanding the mind's reaction 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.
Yes.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
Yes.
> All
> upaya are provisional rafts for crossing the stream. Even the
> preceding sentence is just upaya. Who wants to cross the stream?
> Steve
Yes.
--ED
> --- 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
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/message/22744
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/message/22744>
