I agree the Dhamma is verifiable here and now, but why must it? And I disagree it must be concrete, and totally disagree it must be apophatic.pulga wrote:An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.
D
I agree the Dhamma is verifiable here and now, but why must it? And I disagree it must be concrete, and totally disagree it must be apophatic.pulga wrote:An understanding of the Dhamma must be concrete, apophantic, verifiable here and now.
danieLion wrote:Tilt! Always glad to interact with you.tiltbillings wrote:Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating.danieLion wrote: In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).
Sure, I'll get some citations prepared if you'll permit me some time to consult my collection.
D
Dear Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:A concrete example, please.pulga wrote:I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.tiltbillings wrote:Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.