ralis Posted July 11, 2014 Nature That is a very broad generalization. The natural world? Are you implying that humans are not part of nature? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 That is a very broad generalization. The natural world? Are you implying that humans are not part of nature? One self nature Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 11, 2014 One self nature Very broad again and evasive. Please explain what you mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 Very broad again and evasive. Please explain what you mean. Example A crystal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 To affirm an existent entity whether personal or transpersonal, in whatever form. For example; Judeo-Christian theology which posits an independent, eternal soul... that is an essentialist view. Or, Advaita and Samkhya yogas which posit the purusha [brahman] as is an unconditioned, independently existent, transpersonal field of consciousness... that is an essentialist view. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) This is very exactly crystal Edited July 11, 2014 by Sheboar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 11, 2014 This is very exactly crystal Is English not your first language? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 This is very exactly crystal I think she's using Dzogchen jargon here... Can we please use normal English as much as possible? Please don't say "crystal." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 I think she's using Dzogchen jargon here... Can we please use normal English as much as possible? Please don't say "crystal." Why? Everyone understand this very clear Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 Is English not your first language? im sorry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 11, 2014 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html Obviously, coming from Buddha Śākyamuni this is not an eternalist statement, but is merely pointing to one's nature as profound emptiness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted July 11, 2014 Obviously, coming from Buddha Śākyamuni this is not an eternalist statement, but is merely pointing to one's nature as profound emptiness. Are you implying that there is also an emptiness that is not so profound? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 Obviously, coming from Buddha Śākyamuni this is not an eternalist statement, but is merely pointing to one's nature as profound emptiness. There is no end Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted July 11, 2014 Obviously, coming from Buddha Śākyamuni this is not an eternalist statement, but is merely pointing to one's nature as profound emptiness. Are you implying that there is also an emptiness that is not so profound? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 11, 2014 There is no end ~~~ ADMIN NOTICE ~~~ I am not sure if anyone here figured it out, but Sheboar was Paul with a new account he created after being suspended. The accounts are merged and banned. This is the end ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites