Re: Wait, what's George's unproblem again?


"dee" <szewma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148661097.561261.94380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

,'""-=][^^@-==+ wrote:
"Mayura" <grfarm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4476f172_3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some of the upshots of this being that e.g. you could have a
'convergent'
model of psychological progress. What is 'divergent' will
progressively
'drop off' from what is convergent. You can have a model that purports
to
have universal applicability to every sentient being. One way or
another
with rebirth and survival of bodily death and/or something else, there
is
in
principle enough time for this psychological progress and any
perceivable
pattern of progress in this short life appears as just a short section
of
a
longer pattern etc.

only when hanging on to the notion that
that which is seen as a unique or seperate
'life' continues as that seperate-ness once
form is relinquished. there is no basis for
verification that even the inhabitation of
form proves seperate-ness let alone
some phantasmagorical egoic " thanks,
but i can do it myself" syndrome.

It seems to be harder to conceive of a 'convergent' model of
psychological
progress for a bunch of different contents of skin-bags. You could
have
the
experience 'nibbana' or some meditative way-stage or the general
effect of
it on one's general life or whatever as some kind of slightly more
convergent than most days item but that's about as far as it can go.
What
is
'divergent' has barely anywhere to 'drop off' to. And partly because
of
that, it's difficult to conceive of a model of psychological progress
with
universal applicability. One is always going to be stuck with one's
british
male down's syndromeness or black lesbian bronx dwarfness or whatever
and
attempting to 'grow' some inherently different cherry stone or apple
pip
or
acorn. And there isn't time to do much more than grab and adapt a few
passing psychotherapeutic odds and sods (from e.g. the Buddha)
according
to
ones taste and temperament.

you are 'double mirror' wishing here. you want
a model of universal application that can square
peg its round holes according to one's seperate
taste and temperament. how do you generalize
a patterning that is specific and general at the
same time?

specific to general... relativity????

relative boddhichitta versus absolute boddhichitta?
i want my seperate piece of cake but i want the
entire cake too.


.