conebeckham wrote:Frankly, I believe the "truth" cannot be captured in concepts.
I don't know if we disagree here, but an analogy maybe:
I would say that truth can be captured, but it's elusive, requiring skill, like hunting a wild animal with a bow: If you shoot enough arrows, will you make a kill? No. If you use enough concepts, will you be truthful? No. So we give up papanca, the monkey-mind, running-horse, the ignorance-eating sankharas. If you have the best bow and arrows in the world (the greatest concepts), but no aim (no wisdom), will you make a kill? No. You need the right bow and the right aim.
You can have good aim (wisdom, gnosis, etc.), but if you don't actually use concepts or try to gather the right ones, of what use are you to anyone?
The path of Hinayana is to simply sit down, giving up, being at peace with your own non-ability: resting in pleasant realizations of notself and impermanence. The path of Mahayana, of Buddhahood, is not simply developing wisdom but also an ability to share it.
The greatest teachers did not rest at all in ideas or non-ideas. They worked very hard to promote certain ideas or causes.