ED, I think the first part of the statement is a little nit-picky. 'State' can imply impermance, but we do use the term 'permanent state' or 'constant state'. The way I use the word 'state' is more analogous to 'condition'.
I agree with the second part of the statement that implies enlighenment is the fundamental 'state' or condition, and that 'ignorance of one's nature' is an add-on that obscures, covers up, hides, enlighenment. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > > Bill, mike and All, > > Any thoughts on the statement below? > > Thanks, ED > > > > " States are impermanent by nature so enlightenment is not a state. > States come and go but knowledge of one's nature > does not, therefore enlightenment is the removal of ignorance of one's > nature." > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
