I think you’ve done a great job establishing some sturdy ground for discussion on this topic, and I would not suggest having done anything differently. What I mean is, I have a general agreement with spirit of your article and your Dhamma views, but since these principles all manifest individually in our own experience, it would be terribly inappropriate for me to comment on how you opt to describe them. Hi Dicson, I’d be extremely cautious before I’d ever get into how another understands the finer points of this topic.
If otherwise, I hope I will still have second chances to rephrase and further clarify on my expressions. I shall be more careful and pull up the dictionary where there are the slightest doubt, in order to not further contribute to existing confusions. However, I may on some occasions be unperceptive of the detailed meaning of some words or phrases which cause the oversight (though I suppose this happens to native speakers too since it’s about grasping the significance of things rather than language in itself ), so I really appreciate when another point it out to me. I wouldn’t resort to the excuse that English not being my first language as a hindrance, since I am in fact more comfortable expressing myself in the English language than my native language today. In this case, I didn’t realise that the meaning of the two words are not similar at all. For example, in an early post I had wanted to say ‘conveniently true’ (in the colloquial sense) rather than ‘conventionally true’, and not refer to the ‘conventional’ vs ‘ultimate’ truth division. I hope I hadn’t mixed up the English terms that I used. I see, that’s okay! I’ll check in from time to time but I may prefer to not follow up with the discussion since I do prefer to be more focused and precise in my articulations (in order to avoid confusions). Unfortunately, my company is actually expecting me to pull my weight this week, so I’ve been unable to participate in several interesting ongoing threads.
0 kommentar(er)
