bill.... city air stinks..merle
Merle,
The mountain air. The valley air. The city air.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote:
>
> Â so zen... the mountain air?..merle
>
>
> Â
> Joe,
>
> No, I'd rather not spend my time researching WHY or HOW things happen. I'd
> rather spend my time DOING them.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill!,
> >
> > Sleepy to take on the minute points.
> >
> > My key enthusiasm in my reply to bring in hetu pratyaya, conditioned
> > arising, alongside the theme of karma which you raised, and to mention the
> > fact that karma and causes-and-conditions (another way of expressing hetu
> > pratyaya), and the issues of both selflessness and impermanence are all
> > tied together here in beautiful ways.
> >
> > I don't wish to help deconstruct in typical post-modern fashion our helpful
> > Buddhist philosophical themes by claiming that the observations in samsara
> > which lead to their formation and definition are "illusions": that's
> > already BUILT-IN, Bill!. See below.
> >
> > If you do that, you MIX Yogacara and Madhyamika. Each is better on its own.
> >
> > Yogacara treats the world and life from the point of view of Illusion;
> >
> > Madhyamika does it from the point of view of Enlightenment.
> >
> > If a Madhyamika tears-up Yogacara concepts, well, it's just illiterate of
> > him.
> >
> > Well, these are PHILOSOPHICAL schools. They relate to Zen practice and Zen
> > teaching, but they may not be the most helpful areas where we can spend our
> > time, unless we really want to. Do you really want to? If so, I suggest a
> > review of the two aforementioned Philosophical schools in detail. There's
> > a lot there of value and beauty. Maybe it's time. "Zen" folks here will
> > complain. I suggest private study. I'm good to discuss anytime a few
> > points that come out of it. These are big studies, helpful to some
> > practitioners. Not best in an informal forum, perhaps.
> >
> > --Joe
> >
> > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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).
> >
>
