Re: Big picture (was: Re: Where rubberz meets the roadz)

On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:21:51 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Dave K <dkotschess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>

>
>Blankness and fullness are a rational dichotomy.
>As long as it's one thing or the other it's still not
>free of rational dualities.  If it were easy to explain
>it would be less than what it is.  
>
>So take the Buddha as an example.  He was not 
>unconscious, so unconsciousness is probably not it.
>He called it awakening and not 'enslumbering' so
>there is possibly some expansion involved.  He
>was not aloof and unresponsive, so that's probably
>not it either.
>
>According to the diamond sutra it's something of
>a nothing.  And apparently there's no way at all
>to think about it.  So best to not think about it.
>

Can we think in its general direction?