From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Paul Harvey's Dream (was: Re: Stop thinking?)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep22.171700.7692@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:32:07 GMT

>>>  Would numbers be transcendent?  Human minds?  Is one physical object
>>>transcendent to another spatially discontiguous with it? 
 
>> You ask what is the central core of the word transcendent and I
>> would have to say it is when you look at a flower and you see a butterfly
>> come by and pollinate it. Or when you look at really good art. See what
>> I'm saying?

In article <1992Sep22.171700.7692@ac.dal.ca> 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> At long last, I'm beginning to get some idea of what you mean by
> transcendent. That's a very vague word, hard to get a handle on.

Yes it is, but what did you expect, free gift gimicks?

>What connection do you see between this understanding of the word
>"transcendent" and the doctrine of reincarnation, or resurrection?

Hmm, there's a possible connection, I think, maybe.

> Do you believe in life after death?

In a way yes. Ah, can I cover this ground quickly, oh alright, I'll take
a shot at it. Life without death is dead. Life feeds on life and thus
creates death. So, the reason we die is so that others can live, there
is no other way. Now, we are physically reincarnated, if our remains are
allowed to rot in the ground. But Eternal physical life would be dead,
it would prevent the creation of new life from the stuff of death, so
Eternal physical life is not an option if one wishes life to continue.
But as for the soul or consciousness or existential existance, what is
the fate? Well, what of Eternal soul life, would that also be dead? And
while there might be some indication that some of us are possibly aware
of prior lives, the evidence seems to be that we have no memory at all
of any prior lives of souls. So, draw conclusions as you like, but
remember one thing, life must be keep alive, not allowed to become
static and dead.

> What is the connection between "transcendence" and enlightenment (in the
> Buddhist sense of the word) in your opinion?

To be enlightened means some if not all knowledge of the transcendent.
Note the seeming paradox here, the transcendent is transcendent of
knowledge, it can not be known, so what is it that an enlightened person
is "aware" of? And don't forget, the best have ALL been humbled, and I
certainly am not as enlightened as the best.

>What do you think is the difference between the Buddha and an ordinary man?

Ah, hmm, Buddha was fully enlightened and normally this means you
disappear in a flash of light, you transcend the world we call normal,
that's it, you go beyond the field of opposites, life/death, you/me,
woman/man, us/them, light/dark, etc, all become THE ONE, poof! But,
Buddha, for some reason came back, to play with the children, to
participate joyfully in the sorrows of the human world, to restore the
favor for those who helped the Buddha "see". So, now do you see what
life is really worth?

> I'm curious, because your definition of transcendence looks like it leads 
> to some unorthodox lines of thought...:)

Unorthodox, what does that mean? Remember my dogma: Learn from dogma but
please do not be dogmatic.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc