Bill!,<br/><br/>The reason I posted the description of maya by Nagarjuna was to
show that he recognised the impracticality of just naming all phenomena as
"illusion" and 'that's the end of the story'. If all it takes is to understand
that the material and immaterial are illusory, then why do you still continue
to practice? Wouldn't all your problems and questions be resolved? That's why
this topic doesn't interest me that much. Whether thought is illusory or not
doesn't answer much. That thoughts (whether real or unreal) lead to craving and
aversion is much more relevant. However, it still makes sense to me that a
thought exists in time and space even though the object of that thought (that
Bill! is a beautiful Thai ladyboy) is a falsehood.
Maybe.<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
