Hi Rob E, ... What do you mean by substantial entities? Must one always tie real with substantial? Can something not be conditioned and real at the same time?Message 1 of 158 , Mar 1View SourceHi Rob E,
>What do you mean by substantial entities? Must one always tie real with
> Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are
> 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their
> demise is indeed annihilation.
substantial? Can something not be conditioned and real at the same time?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Sarah. ... I continue to think this is a very zen approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it zen you d probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as itMessage 158 of 158 , Apr 27View SourceHi Sarah.
--- In email@example.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation.
> This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it!
I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now.
A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again."
- - - - - - - - - - - -