Indigo, boy.
So the Montreal equivalent of Borders these days is apparently a store called Indigo. It's very nice. I walked by it three times before settling for the other store. Indigo has two floors, one french-language and one english-language. It's quite large. There's a whole wall of f&sf - about a hundred feet of shelf space. Just for the stuff in English. The reason I walked by Indigo three times is that they didn't have any books in their display - one window was just some wrapping paper that said "solde" (sale!) and the other had some CDs. So I thought it was a music store.
The weird thing is that I really like the word "Indigo." So normally I would have gone in just on the basis of the name, to see what they were selling. But not today.
Obstacles... :'}
The weird thing is that I really like the word "Indigo." So normally I would have gone in just on the basis of the name, to see what they were selling. But not today.
Obstacles... :'}
posted by Ted Lemon at 5:52 AM
5 Comments:
Hi,
Thanks for all the India posts; I enjoyed reading about your adventures.
We actually met once a couple years ago, in Tucson, introduced by Rebecca Vinacour who thinks we're twins or vaguely similar. (she stayed with us in SF during the heart yoga tour).
Anyway, merci.
I do seem to recall Rebecca saying something about twins, but it's been a long time. Anyway, I'm glad you've enjoyed the blog. It's been an interesting exercise. :')
I would like to hear more about the teachings. Was it everything you expected? What did you learn?
Thanks for sharing your photos.
If you want to know what we learned, the best thing to do would be to listen to the teaching yourself - it would be hard to compress it into a few pithy comments.
However, Christie did sum it up pretty nicely at the end, when she said that the reason that there are so many different seemingly contradictory teachings by the Buddha is that every student is different. The thing that the teachings are trying to get the student to realize is not something that can be expressed in words. So in a very real sense you can say that none of the teachings of the Buddha are true. And yet in another sense you can say that they all are true. And this is because the function of each of these different teachings is to lead you to the same realization, a deep yogic perception of the nature of reality. Despite the fact that none of the teachings are the realization itself, they can still function to produce that realization, so in that sense they are true.
Er, to be clear, although Christie summarized the teaching in the way that she did, the point of the teaching wasn't simply the summary, so if all you read is the summary, you've missed out on a lot of good stuff. The point of trying to follow these teachings is to stretch your mind to the point where it can see the object at which the teachings are pointing. If the Buddhas could just tell us the thing that would make us see ultimate reality in a quick summary, they would, and then we would all go off and have a nice dance party instead of sitting around studying emptiness. :')
Post a Comment
<< Home