Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

There it is back again. You didn't get anything I tried to bring across. Tell me, Orn, what are you to possess the necessary sense of blindness that Neil seems to be lacking?

You could have posted a wiki link on Geronimo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo) to exemplify how well embraced eastern and western cultures can live across times in perfect innocence without any scepticism.

And what did you do? You posted a wiki link to the name of the person whose thoughts had been introduced to the discussion by Neil. Unbelievable. Your embracing the world must indeed feel impossible to describe.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:45 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:

As to there being 'no view', in a sense this is correct. Having 'no
position' is one of the principles of consciousness…even though as
this list proves, we all are posters for holding firm to positions!

The thing with 'no position/view' is that this doesn't imply the lack
of awareness nor even the actual lack of discrimination. It is a
unique state that embraces everything and everyone all at once…
something quite a bit easier to imply than to describe!

Of course even the philosopher Senge (Gorampa) concluded that a
distinction between differing philosophies is 'reasonable to make'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorampa

The apparent difference between east/west philosophy needn't be as
wide as many make it. Yes Neil, it would be nice if Rene's skepticism
as being a necessary stop on the road. However, as far as I can tell,
it is but an aborted short trip in the opposite direction.

And, yes, 'all kinds of arguments can always be made'.

Welcome old friend!

On May 5, 3:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One might go 'Gorampa' on this.  Gorampa's particular brand of Madhyamaka
> philosophy is defined by his understanding of the relationship between the
> two truths, the use of negation, the role of logic, and proper methods of
> philosophical argumentation.  His work was banned, one reason I've been
> looking.  .His views regarding the two truths and negation inform a process
> whereby the Mādhyamika begins with logic and analysis, but ends in a state
> of nonconceptuality, Gorampa contends that there can be no differences
> between Mādhyamikas with respect to their final view. There cannot be
> different types of nonconceptuality; freedom from conceptual constructs is
> freedom from conceptual constructs.   The final, ultimate view is actually
> no view at all.
>
> This might seem as much use as as chocolate teapot.  I suspect there is some
> way for us to commune non-conceptually long before any 'guru state' is
> achieved and that we need this for knowledge that can shift us from the
> current interregnum.  One might take Descartes as meaning one has to doubt
> all to arrive at anything of value, and I rather like the notion that this
> is non-conceptual.  I like the sway of these Indian and Tibetan arguments,
> yet think they serve to remind us how much we exclude from our arguments
> in forgetting what the self does in argument, rushing us to 'decision',
> forgetting all kinds of argument can always be made  (Pyrhho in western
> stuff).