Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:Nice analogy!

The ocean being the Absolute ground of all being. That always is, was, and ever will be ..indivisibly one?

Thanks!

I think so. It’s what I’ve realized, but I fall short of the ideal dolphin, and yet the dualistic world is that which reminds me of water's density.

For the proof of your rhetorical question, one need only see the purity in the eyes of an infant or small child, before it is conceptually affected by the causes of folks.

Re: gyatso, i.e. ocean, i.e. compassion as the “ground of being”:
Relating this analogy to Christianity is important for a knowlegable Christian such as yourself in this particular instance, since attention to the situation contributes to the manifestation “of the ground” both in concept and being, as you identify it. For situational appropriateness it is important for all to have a chance to hear, and Christianity is a framework within which all can be said.

I think that beautiful as the bible is, saying all that can be said without scripture is important, in Christianity and Buddhism (dharma), because some of the all folks have a block against theism, although Buddhism is not theism, although Tibetan Buddhism incorporated the indigenous customs which included various types of energetic entities found in Shamanism and Bon Po.

Anyway, thank you very much for the dialogue.

I have to shut up for awhile.
Balance, you know.

Walker wrote:
Anyway, thank you very much for the dialogue.

I have to shut up for awhile.
Balance, you know.

You're very welcome, I've always known you! always love talking to myself..

It's very quiet here isn't it, have you noticed?

thedoc wrote:Then you don't really understand what a parable is. ...

It's to point out an moral or ethical stance with respect to a certain situation. What point a parable if not to say follow its example?

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Then you don't really understand what a parable is. ...

It's to point out an moral or ethical stance with respect to a certain situation. What point a parable if not to say follow its example?

All parables are not the same, Some illustrate what to do and how to act, others are cautionary tales telling what not to do.

thedoc wrote:All parables are not the same, Some illustrate what to do and how to act, others are cautionary tales telling what not to do.

And this was the former I thought?

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Then you don't really understand what a parable is. ...

It's to point out an moral or ethical stance with respect to a certain situation.

Its NOT 'an' moral stance - ITS 'a' moral stance.

It really pisses me off especially when an educated member of English upbringing doesnt know or cares less about the difference.

One uses 'an' when the word following begins with a vowel and 'a' when the following word begins with a consonant.

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Then you don't really understand what a parable is. ...

It's to point out an moral or ethical stance with respect to a certain situation.

Its NOT 'an' moral stance - ITS 'a' moral stance.

It really pisses me off especially when an educated member of English upbringing doesnt know or cares less about the difference.

One uses 'an' when the word following begins with a vowel and 'a' when the following word begins with a consonant.

And some people just don't care. Years ago it used to grate on my nerves when people would use suspicion and suspect interchangeably. More recently my son started saying "more funner" and I would just grit my teeth and ignore it. Some of this misuse contributes to the change of meaning of some words and some is just annoying.

attofishpi wrote: Its NOT 'an' moral stance - ITS 'a' moral stance.

Shouldn't that be "It's" and "IT'S"?

It really pisses me off especially when an educated member of English upbringing doesnt know or cares less about the difference.

Or just makes a typo and doesn't re-read clearly enough.

Oh! And "doesn't" and probably "care" not "cares".

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Its NOT 'an' moral stance - ITS 'a' moral stance.

Shouldn't that be "It's" and "IT'S"?

It really pisses me off especially when an educated member of English upbringing doesnt know or cares less about the difference.

Or just makes a typo and doesn't re-read clearly enough.

Oh! And "doesn't" and probably "care" not "cares".

Not even the apostles cared about apostrofees. Actually i was testing whether my English teacher had been bullshitting us all along...it amazes me how often that happens on the BBC site.

That'll be "I".