Post Reply
Page 6 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Death: The Grand Illusion
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:17PM #51
Namchuck
Posts: 11,605

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:11PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:56PM, Namchuck wrote:



He wasn't into talking about it.





Which might just imply that he wasn't interested in it, especially considering that he was primarily concerned with clarity of thought. There is very little of the latter in mysticism.




I submit it is more the case that he realized that words are the map not the territory and that all too many confuse the map for the territory.


Apr 25, 2011 -- 7:56PM, Namchuck wrote:


A buddhist monk once told me that Buddha had referred to mystics as "eel wrigglers", but I haven't been able to confirm that. 





If you get a confirmation or a denial on that, I'd be interesting in knowing.


 





Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:21PM #52
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:29PM #53
Namchuck
Posts: 11,605

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:21PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 





True, but, as I say, it would be consistent with the Buddha's approach, as even the quote you cited would strongly tend to suggest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:32PM #54
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:21PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 





True, but, as I say, it would be consistent with the Buddha's approach, as even the quote you cited would strongly tend to suggest.





That is a leap of faith I'm not convinced is warranted.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:42PM #55
Namchuck
Posts: 11,605

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:21PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 





True, but, as I say, it would be consistent with the Buddha's approach, as even the quote you cited would strongly tend to suggest.





That is a leap of faith I'm not convinced is warranted.


 





It requires no "leap of faith". It is, I repeat, consistent with the Buddha's overall message and of his approach. 


You would like to think it is such a leap, but then you have a psychologically vested interest in regarding it as so.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 8:58PM #56
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:21PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 





True, but, as I say, it would be consistent with the Buddha's approach, as even the quote you cited would strongly tend to suggest.





That is a leap of faith I'm not convinced is warranted.





It requires no "leap of faith". It is, I repeat, consistent with the Buddha's overall message and of his approach. 





It is consistent with your understanding of his words, just as mine is.


We could both be equal in misunderstanding him.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 9:18PM #57
Namchuck
Posts: 11,605

Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:58PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:32PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:21PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Perhaps, but he may just not have been interested in such vagaries, which certainly would be more consistent with his approach.





This is something we may never know for sure.


 





True, but, as I say, it would be consistent with the Buddha's approach, as even the quote you cited would strongly tend to suggest.





That is a leap of faith I'm not convinced is warranted.





It requires no "leap of faith". It is, I repeat, consistent with the Buddha's overall message and of his approach. 





It is consistent with your understanding of his words, just as mine is.


We could both be equal in misunderstanding him.


 




 


While it is possible that we both might misunderstand him, the Buddha's words were well articulated and very clear. 


None of this changes the fact, though, that he demonstrated no interest in mystic mumblings. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 9:23PM #58
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Apr 25, 2011 -- 9:18PM, Namchuck wrote:


None of this changes the fact, though, that he demonstrated no interest in mystic mumblings. 





It is also the case that he showed no interest in the "mumblings" of the materialist.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 10:02PM #59
Namchuck
Posts: 11,605

Apr 25, 2011 -- 9:23PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 25, 2011 -- 9:18PM, Namchuck wrote:


None of this changes the fact, though, that he demonstrated no interest in mystic mumblings. 





It is also the case that he showed no interest in the "mumblings" of the materialist.


 





Yes, but who was talking about materialism?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2011 - 10:06PM #60
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

You haven't been speaking from the perspective of a materialist?


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook