Both aspects where expressed in the same existence. Two sides of one coin if you would. They need not be in contest with each other. It would seem this is a constant within the context of existence.Minobu wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:40 am
thats really only in your mind...you have no idea what you are even saying. and when asked you just give more of the same without answering.It would seem it was a necessary component of their own enlightenment.
you remind me of people that read the bible word for word and think being gay is a sin.
you are reading stuff way too literally..
john pointed this out recently and now it's easy to see.
I'm not up on study , and so a lot of stuff slips by me unchecked.
how does that lil diddy go "Gotta wash that man right out of my head "
Yet they both declare teachings accord to the capacity, causes, conditions and the time. This function exists on in individual and collective levels.
Imagine being born full sized with teeth hair car keys and a suit. An aspect of our sentient existence is the developmental process.
I personally don't understand (but an open to having it explained as I lack this capacity) the conflict it causes. If the contrast between the provisional and absolute is present in all things (as it is an aspect of the mind that sees things in these perspectives) why would the discarding a provisional perspective for an absolute one be negative? The provisional knowledge and benefits are not lost. They are reconciled to a greater truth.
We don't necessarily forget what we learned as a child when we are adults even though our behaviors have changed. Proof is how parents adapt to a child's level intuitively. Part of this intuition is a recollection of their own experiences. Even though childhood is provisional for adulthood what is learned from it isn't in contest in our own existence, instead they act in complimentary fashion.