Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:55:58 +0100
Ken Clark wrote:
>
> > I am not sure that all of this talk about not being able to understand
> > reality because we are a part of it is right. I would be interested to
> > hear
> > your explanation of why that is so. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Indeed it doesn't. We most certainly can understand reality. We can
understand it completely and perfectly. Saying we are "part of" reality
is as much an SOM point of view as saying that we are separate from
reality. In the context of Dynamic Quality we are not separate from
reality and we are not part of reality, we *are* reality. There is no
difference. To be precise we shouldn't even say "we are reality", we
should say "reality is"
It's only in an intellectual sense that we can't understand it. As a
Dynamic understanding doesn't make the intellectual distinctions
necessary to explain what reality is, the question goes unanswered. All
the Buddha can say is "See for yourself".
Diana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST