07-07-2010, 12:03 AM
Asiris,
Just because you do not understand what is being spoken of here, does not mean it is "overintelualizaton." I don't see how your sniping helps any.
Ninth calling Tiff a Parrot doesn't help any either. Please try to stay on point with this discussion.
Just for the record it might seem like Tiff and I have been coordinating with all this but I assure everyone that is not the case. Since beginning this thread I have had a brief email exchange with Tiffany, we are just starting to see the implications of dependent origination and are applying it. Even the term dependent origination, have we really considered it?
Nemo, Hogwash! I love it. Ok now we are getting somewhere. I know you are still catching up trying to reply to previous emails, I have the same issue, but please could you be more specific with what you are calling hogwash? I would really like to respond. I am not a physicist but if you wish to relate this to the laws of physics etc....er ok, what's the issue?
If we are beginning to understand dependent origination and the implications involved then I can see how "hogwash" might arise, as it should. You see I think many of us think we understand Buddhism and have dismissed it or at least banished it to the realms of barely relevant. I do not mind that someone might not care for this but at least if you are going to dismiss it at least do so from having understood what is being presented. I know from my own experience that I had great difficulty even approaching what Nagarjuna was saying. He can arrest a person with just one sentence lol. It takes effort to see what he is saying. But why should this be so? Because we have piled up layers up layers of obscuring concepts that have left us confused and bewildered by the appearance of objects and plunged us deeper into the entanglements of self consciousness. What Nagarjuna is saying is very simple. It is just that we are used to imputing substantiality to things which have none. So when we hear from someone who is not doing that it seems strange and we cannot grasp where he is coming from.
I do not consider myself Buddhist, at this point. I have just come across information that I think has relevance for anyone seriously engaged.
Ps. If we having great difficulty with Nagarjuna and this first movement concerning emptiness the we will not fare well when it comes to the second movement and Dzogchen.
Just because you do not understand what is being spoken of here, does not mean it is "overintelualizaton." I don't see how your sniping helps any.
Ninth calling Tiff a Parrot doesn't help any either. Please try to stay on point with this discussion.
Just for the record it might seem like Tiff and I have been coordinating with all this but I assure everyone that is not the case. Since beginning this thread I have had a brief email exchange with Tiffany, we are just starting to see the implications of dependent origination and are applying it. Even the term dependent origination, have we really considered it?
Nemo, Hogwash! I love it. Ok now we are getting somewhere. I know you are still catching up trying to reply to previous emails, I have the same issue, but please could you be more specific with what you are calling hogwash? I would really like to respond. I am not a physicist but if you wish to relate this to the laws of physics etc....er ok, what's the issue?
If we are beginning to understand dependent origination and the implications involved then I can see how "hogwash" might arise, as it should. You see I think many of us think we understand Buddhism and have dismissed it or at least banished it to the realms of barely relevant. I do not mind that someone might not care for this but at least if you are going to dismiss it at least do so from having understood what is being presented. I know from my own experience that I had great difficulty even approaching what Nagarjuna was saying. He can arrest a person with just one sentence lol. It takes effort to see what he is saying. But why should this be so? Because we have piled up layers up layers of obscuring concepts that have left us confused and bewildered by the appearance of objects and plunged us deeper into the entanglements of self consciousness. What Nagarjuna is saying is very simple. It is just that we are used to imputing substantiality to things which have none. So when we hear from someone who is not doing that it seems strange and we cannot grasp where he is coming from.
I do not consider myself Buddhist, at this point. I have just come across information that I think has relevance for anyone seriously engaged.
Ps. If we having great difficulty with Nagarjuna and this first movement concerning emptiness the we will not fare well when it comes to the second movement and Dzogchen.