137526Re: References to beings in the texts must be similes or metaphors?
- Aug 19, 2014Hi KenH, > KH: I type most of my messages in a Word document and then paste them into the reply page. That method seems to be avoiding the latest Yahoo glitch.
pt: Thanks for the tip, I’m typing this out in Word, so let’s see if it works.
> > Pt: At least one of the implications is that reading dhamma texts is pointless, since texts are not "a person with understanding".pt: Yes, hence my surprise. I mean, if it’s all dhammas, there shouldn’t be any difference then whether it’s a text, dhamma spoken by a fool, or dhamma spoken by a person with understanding. It all reaches the recipient as rupas regardless, which he then interprets conceptually according to his predispositions. Or so I think I understand it.
> KH: Nor is anything else “a person” of any kind. There are only dhammas. Conventional terminology might be used to describe dhammas, but there are no conventional realities.
By the way, I meant to ask you – how do you understand communication? I mean, if it’s all just dhammas, then any sort of exact communication should be impossible. I mean, hearing and sounds are dhammas, but something like “education system in Australia” is all just concepts, so pure imagination basically. And yet, when someone says, “education system in Australia”, I do understand what they mean. Well, to a degree. But if it was all dhammas, there should be no connection between sounds and concepts that one person imagines and those that another person imagines, as concepts in both cases are pure illusions and therefore cannot equal each oter, since well, they don’t exist, being illusions and all. And yet, we do understand eachother to a degree, so we must be imagining similarly then? Or what the hell is happening there? I still just don’t get it. Damn concepts…
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>