Talk:mi 'phro bar gnas pa: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi [[KT]], would these entries 'abiding to non-distraction' and 'abiding to non-arising' be better stated as 'non-distracted abiding' and 'abiding '''''as''''' the nonarising of particulars, or [[dharmas]], as distractions'? | <wytotib>{{PAGENAME}}</wytotib> | ||
Hi [[KT]], would these entries 'abiding to non-distraction' and 'abiding to non-arising' be better stated as 'non-distracted abiding' and 'abiding '''''as''''' the nonarising of particulars, or [[dharmas]], as distractions'? If I misinterpreted your inference I apologize, but the point I'm trying to make is to be as clear and concise (without being ''too'' concise) in these english definitions as possible. With the inference of abiding '''''to''''' this or that, it seems as if one would be going from one notion ''to'' another, which in meditational equipoise would merely introduce further distraction. Do you see what I mean?<br> | |||
--[[User:Richard|Richard]] 13:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT) | --[[User:Richard|Richard]] 13:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT) | ||
::Yes. <b>to</b> becomes confusing. Has a sense of movement in a phrase that does not. Thankyou Richard. [[KT|[KT]]] 20:52, 6 October 2007 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:10, 1 March 2019
ཊལཀ༔མི་འཕྲོ་བར་གནས་པ
Hi KT, would these entries 'abiding to non-distraction' and 'abiding to non-arising' be better stated as 'non-distracted abiding' and 'abiding as the nonarising of particulars, or dharmas, as distractions'? If I misinterpreted your inference I apologize, but the point I'm trying to make is to be as clear and concise (without being too concise) in these english definitions as possible. With the inference of abiding to this or that, it seems as if one would be going from one notion to another, which in meditational equipoise would merely introduce further distraction. Do you see what I mean?
--Richard 13:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes. to becomes confusing. Has a sense of movement in a phrase that does not. Thankyou Richard. [KT] 20:52, 6 October 2007 (EDT)