Vaj wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > >> TurquoiseB wrote: >>> I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who >>> declare that only their theory is correct may simply not >>> have had the breadth of experience that the people they >>> consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of >>> experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might >>> be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it >>> appears to be for them. But that's not the case. >>> Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is >>> consistent with experiences that long predated >>> ever hearing about it as a theory. >> Fundamentalists are mostly literalists. They understand things only at >> a very basic level. OTOH, if you want to go deep enough there really >> isn't any proof that anything exists. This existence can be and may be >> nothing more than an illusion. How can you prove otherwise? > > > Ah yes, the "empty" piano falls on your "empty" head--but you still > die. Why? :-) Are you sure about that? Maybe it just happens to the other "beings" in the illusion. But I'm not going to test the thesis. :-D
> > The paradox of emptiness and form; form and emptiness. The witness has > to be dissolved to where we grok the two as coemergent properties in > our own (unconventional) experience. It cannot be resolved via the > intellect alone.
