Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-dallas!news-in-dallas.newsfeeds.com!telocity-west!TELOCITY!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr2.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Namdrol" Newsgroups: alt.zen,talk.religion.buddhism References: <9jjqbu$tf@hercules.ntsource.com> <3GB77.22127$Iz3.5243261@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <3B5EEB87.B14E4FE1@yahoo.com> <3b603629.1882610@news.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Volunteers for self-combustion (was Re: Odp: Mailbox and Flowers, to Lines: 71 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: X-Trace: +SQ/lpW51NtsZAMii6mqgc06rQyhn9JlwnPFyMv42vkxrb8B0QpEbZLEhT0W+BXdMA8r7e9Bfe87!S79rdUCUHMVNW8dC3VSC2A/9yHv9TMWlwDKjVaASAi6I4QnP0tgnm5x5Fqg/2KWvlnLCNix08Uw2!jXUqH42nNsY5kHc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gtei.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:20:06 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:20:06 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.zen:242465 talk.religion.buddhism:165245 wrote in message news:3b603629.1882610@news.mindspring.com... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:54:37 GMT, "Namdrol" > wrote: > > > > >"DharmaTroll" wrote in message > >news:sNC77.6583$ar1.20301@www.newsranger.com... > > > >> I have much more of a problem with Namdrool, because he is well-read and > >> educated, and not a silly New-Age crystal girl, and yet he spreads all > >sorts of > >> crap about deities and devas and astral planes and souls and the like. He > >should > >> know better. > > > > > >You are a really judgmental guy. > > > >Namdrol > > It seems as if our boy DT is trying to say something that is, on the > surface, a realist position about *things* and *non-things*, i.e., > things are real, non-things are not real. The only problem is that Right. > within the scope and context of Buddhist argument, realities that can > be stated are not necessarily allowed as arguments that prove a point. > For instance, DT says the pot exists, which anyone can state, yet in > the context of argument, that cannot be said to be an unarguable > accurate statement. To say that the pot deceptively exists can be > said and properly argued for. One cannot say, "The pot exists," and > then argue against its existence when it is broken. The pot > deceptively exists, appears to exist, temporally exists, can be said. Or more pointedly a deceived mind apprehends a conventionally designated "pot" as an existent. Upon analysis, the pot is found to be a mere imputation, and the deceived mind longer arises with regard to that "pot". For a commoner in meditative equipoise, such things as "pots" still continue to appear-- upon correctly understanding emptiness, the person on the Mahayana path of seeing on up no longer apprehends convetional entities while in meditative equipoise, and while in post meditation, perceive everything as if it were a dream. If one asserts that pots and so on are real, all this points to is that the person in question is still attributing identity [self, essence, etc] to phenomena. > The Pot *exists* cannot be said without qualifying in what way it can > be said to exist, unless one is pointing towards something that Correctly, which is why we add the term "conventionally" in order to show that we are referring to an entity as it exists for common sentient beings and not meditators on the path of seeing on up. > exists by virtue of its having an essential existence. Correct. Namdrol