Racking your brain with questions of pure and impure to the point of making them a central, fixed point necessarily leads to rigid behaviors that generate suffering, primarily in those who are hostage to this tropism, then to anyone they encounter.
Racking your brain with questions of pure and impure to the point of making them a central, fixed point necessarily leads to rigid behaviors that generate suffering, primarily in those who are hostage to this tropism, then to anyone they encounter.
Notes & Silence 
Unless it is of something susceptible to laboratory analysis, the idea of purity seems to be to be meaningless.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I do identify impurity within a man’s heart.
Intuition is the science of all sciences.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
By what standard of purity?
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
You re trying to gauge purity s purity…
That can only be the fruit of a lawyer’s mind
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
« Pure » is absolute. In this life, an ideal, and unattainable.
« Purity » and « impurity » are antithetical levels by which a… « whatever »… is judged as approximating, or falling short of, the pure.
But, inevitably, there has to be an understanding of what is « pure » to reach such a conclusion.
And even the question of what is, or is not, « pure », may prove highly subjective. That seems to me implicit in your post.
I know of men who judge as pure what I consider corrupt, and as corrupt that which I regard as unobjectionable.
So, the question of what you consider as « pure », and how you judge « purity », seems to me to be inevitable, in the context of this thread.
Sorry to hit you with a lawyer’s reasoning.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
And yet, the answer is at a different level than this terminological battlefield.
You are talkingi about purity of the object when I consider purity of the subject.
The question is not on the « whatever » but on the « whence-ever ».
When observed from a non pure platform, any object is stained.
And conversely.
I agree : Laywer’s reasoning hurts
Our nature.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
And yet, the answer is at a different level than this terminological battlefield.
You are talkingi about purity of the object when I consider purity of the subject.
The question is not on the « whatever » but on the « whence-ever ».
When observed from a non pure platform, any object is stained.
And conversely.
I agree : Laywer’s reasoning hurts
Our nature.
___
second reading : i hadn’t read yoru first line : « « Pure » is absolute. In this life, an ideal, and unattainable. »
This would be enough to invalidate my point in this comment.
Except that I still believe this is peremptory. (categorical ?)
What pertains to the absolute is not so categorically unattaible « in this life ».
What would we do here, if such were the case …
I’d stop everything at once.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I’ve really enjoyed your posts and your outlook on life. I nominated you for the Sunshine Blogger Award—details are in my latest post:
J’aimeAimé par 2 personnes