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

On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:39:49 -0500, Ali <lalala@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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?

Do you think you can?  8-)

Probably it is best appraoched indirectly
through insight meditation as the Buddha taught.

Or koan meditation-concentration.

From here the end looks like bafflement.
The end of conjectures and certainties.
When there's nowhere to go, then there you are.