permanent state to me sounds void of meaning. Does permanent here mean "beginning and ending have no meaning," which makes sense but I would find eternal clearer than permanent, or is this some claim to a temporal duration of large extent?
I don't imagine that Bill means the temporal extent thing, I am just nitpicking more here. On Dec 31, 2011 11:57 PM, "Bill!" <[email protected]> wrote: ED, I think the first part of the statement is a little nit-picky. 'State' can imply impermance, but we do use the term 'permanent state' or 'constant state'. The way I use the word 'state' is more analogous to 'condition'. I agree with the second part of the statement that implies enlighenment is the fundamental 'state' or condition, and that 'ignorance of one's nature' is an add-on that obscures, covers up, hides, enlighenment. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > > Bill, mike and All, ...
