Re: Question about Mahayana.
- Hi Howard, and Jon.
--- In email@example.com, upasaka@... wrote:
> Just an 0bservation: Distinguishability of objects of consciousness that are alleged to be separate realities does not imply their being actual realities or separate entities. Yes, paramattha dhammas are distinguishable, but so are Ford cars from Mercedes, pine trees from rose bushes, you from me, and the Dhammastudy group from the U.S. Congress from the U.S. Supreme Court.
I was wondering why the U.S. Supreme Court never answered my questions about the inherent nature of dhammas.
Howard, if there is a visible object followed by a sound object are you saying that we don't know whether they are in fact facets of the same object, experienced at separate moments, or whether they are indeed separate realities?
= = = = = = = = = = = =
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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."
- - - - - - - - - - - -