Go to Choose NOW
- Add a comment
- Go to Death of a Flame
Re: Sam
Thanks for reading. I hope the Olympic torch will transfer some light to the Chinese government.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 16, 2008 at 4:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: ZenMom
Does my reply to Bardolicious make sense to you? Thanks for reading. Words can never get us there, otherwise meditation would be a complete waste of time and all the high IQ people would be enlightened.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 16, 2008 at 4:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Re:
Thanks for reading and thinking about it. I'm sure you are capable of "deep" thought.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 16, 2008 at 4:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Well, "the flame" and "the mind" are both names and if Aristotle were h
It is getting stuck in the "thingness" that gives rise to the mistaken view of "things" existing in and of themselves. I agree with "the name of a thing is not the same as the thing itself" from an exercise in linguistics point of view for the practical purpose of communication. I disagree with the "thingness" of "the thing itself" part. Regardless of the "flameness" and "mindness" you refer to as staying the same whilst the constituent parts change, the flame and it's flameness depends on a multitude of other factors (all dependently arisen phenomena) on whose presence its appearance depends. Flames and all other phenomena are never existents in and of themselves. They appear as if they are free standing objects and we talk about them as if they are objects that are self existent "out there" and we would not be able to talk sensibly about anything if we did not view them as such for the sake of communication an practical workability. That is called the world of relative truth. Absolute truth is apprehendable by mind as such in an experiential way. It is not pointable to by words, simply because it is not a "thing" that is definable as a "thing" for practical purposes by thoughts as words or images. This is the whole point behind not making an image of God. God is experiential and not an object amongst other objects that we can point to with the tools of relative truth. If you have not had this experience of reality that is not dependent on discursive thinking, you can talk about it until you drop dead from exhaustion, you will never understand the words spoken and written about it by all the enlightened teachers of all the traditions.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 16, 2008 at 4:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, "the flame" and "the mind" are both names and if Aristotle were here
he would tell you that the name of a thing is not the same as the thing itself, I think. The nature of the flame and the mind includes changing elements. It is still "a" flame and "a" mind even if the elements have changed and they still partake of "flameness" and "mindness" over time no matter how much they change, even though the exact molecules that burn are constantly changing and all the thoughts move onto new topics....
posted by
WindTapper
on April 16, 2008 at 2:28 AM
| link to this | reply
I thought about the Olympic torch, the transfer of light so to speak! sam
posted by
sam444
on April 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay.........i like this one. I can relate to the candle theme
posted by
ZenMom
on April 14, 2008 at 9:30 AM
| link to this | reply
now that's a deep thought provoking question dear...
posted by
__Purple_Mermaid11__
on April 14, 2008 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply