Quote:
|
It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE.
|
Not only did you leave out critical parts of the language that makes up the sutra, but the part you put in capitals "LANTERNS COULD SEE" makes it appear that you completely missed the point about the mind and felt that LANTERNS COULD SEE.
Seeing as how I haven't gotten into the sutras yet (I'm more interested in how Buddhism relates to math and science), I was only going on what you posted.
Then
Quote:
|
And they are actually the exact same thing, "If eyes can see then lanterns can see". Then, "You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind".
|
They are not the same if you don't know the context in which they both were used.
"If eyes can see then lanterns can see". And exactly how could anyone unfamilliar with the sutra possibly know the part about the mind? Taken alone this has a totally different meaning.
Language and context are very important when you are trying to make a point.
Do you "see" what I mean?
Threaded Mode