Actually Preecher - I do consider myself a Buddhist. Well, a Buddhist/agnostic. I'm still coming to terms with the second part. I haven't read the sutras yet because I believe that much like the bible, the stories are not as important as the concept.
I've only just started to study Buddhism, however the view I have had of life and the universe since I was a child very closely matches Buddhist philosophy.
Seth - I don't think either of us argued it on a metaphysical level at all. We were arguing the way the wording was in the posts. Think of it like this. If I said and HE said eat my BODY and drink my BLOOD. And they ate His BODY and drank His BLOOD. ATE HIS BODY AND DRANK HIS BLOOD.
Does this come off as the way the story actually goes or does it come off as a strange canablistic concept? From the tone of Kahls first post I thought (s)he was laughing at the sutra because (s)he thought that lanterns can see. I didn't get the sarcasm.
Quote:
|
And the Script was about perceptions and i think it includes other things. Which if irrelevant would do a wonderful thing to your opinion.
|
I think it is more about understanding. But that is on the next tier. I'll have to read the sutra to see if it is a step or if it ends there.
Quote:
|
Who says the mind is seeing anything? Are your eyes and lanterns the tools of your mind, or could it be reversed? Is the object of your sight a tool as well, or is the reason for your sight the object of the excercise, forcing all things involved, eyes, minds, lanterns and apples into slavery?
|
Not tools, constructs.