Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:21:37 +1000 From: David Quinn <davidquinn-AT-ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Tao, paradox, heraclitus Ariosto wrote: >You know Faizi, I am disappointed, I really >thought that perhaps David was holding back on me and could have at >any time displayed a nuanced and detailed understanding of Buddhist >philosophy and psychology which would have forced me to pay attention and >listen with more respect but it didn't and it hasn't happened. I am >not sorry he chooses to leave us, just disappointed. I know he would >have found this list a challenge but he seems intent on dogmatic >statements without nuance. The trouble is, I don't think you and I are ready for a discussion with nuances - at least, not yet. You're like a lover of classical music who wants to discuss the nuances of classical music, whereas I am like the person who rejects music altogether because he is interested in something which is far more interesting and vital. The reason why my comments to this list have been so "dogmatic" is because it's been my basic aim so far to do nothing else but point your attention in another direction. How many nuances can be extracted from comments like "Hey, over here!" and "Don't go that way - it's a dead end!" and "Look what I've found!" and so on? Not very many, one would think. Yet that's basically the stage where our conversation is currently at. I'm saying "Over here!" and you're saying, "No, over here!" :) >For instance toward mysticism because he >implied, that in these traditions, whatever we may be refering to >with this word, there was no purifying of reason. In fact, that's one >of the main topics of communication. Right there, I had to wonder >about how much he had in fact thought about mysticism and its relation >to philosophy. I've thought about it a lot, actually. Indeed, I was very interested in mysticism in my earlier years and there was a period there where I spent several years cultivating mystical experiences until I became quite good at it. But then, as my reasoning powers began to develop, I began to see its limitations more and more clearly. Nowadays, I see through it completely. (I define "mysticism" as the attempt to directly apprehend Ultimate Reality by non-rational means.) >Philosophy is not simple, it requires >years to ignite so that you know you are really living it with passion. Agreed. But at the same time, just because a person is passionate about philosophy doesn't automatically mean he is passionate about Truth and on the path to enlightenment. After all, Christian fundamentalists are passionate about philosophy too (or at least their own particular brand of it) and yet they are insane people who have no connection at all with the spiritual path. >My intent is not to push anybody out of this list, I just >want nuanced discussions with depth to them, especially if you pretend >to the wisdom of sages. Well, come over to genius-l, if you want, and we can take it up again there. I'm just about to unsubscribe from this list. David Quinn
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005