Joe, You've used it as an a priori assumption in your post below, and yes it is accepted as such because of empirical observation. Of course empirical observation is a process of the dualistic, discriminating mind and as such is illusory. So...if you're making the statement below from that perspective, then that's okay with me.
I just wanted to be sure you are basing this entire definition on dualistic, mental models (aka illusions). ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > Well, now, it's not _a priori_, it is an empirical observation. > > A Flower is not made of a Flower. It is made of water, sunlight, earth > minerals, carbon dioxide, etc., all NON-flower elements. > > Pancakes are made of flour: a non-PANCAKE element! > > Now, for fun I'll change the subject, a little: > > What are you due to? > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > Thanks for your explanation of 'conditioned-arising'. In it you start with > > the a base assumption that "Because things always consist of material, or > > energy, that came together to form or cause them, they are not themselves, > > but consist instead of these other disparate things,...". Why do you > > accept this a priori? > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
