Yes, but I really don't have any particular attachment to whether dhammas are actually momentary or not and (as you know, so you won't be surprised) I don't think it makes any difference to what I should actually do
and I've yet to hear an argument that makes sense to me
about why I should care about such obscure technicalities. As I see it the different views expressed are simply different ways of approaching the Dhamma.
I appreciate hearing about different perspectives, but I can't really get particularly excited about some of these technicalities except
that there seems to be an implication in threads such as this that many modern practitioners are doing it all wrong and if they only got all those technicalities straight they would be OK. If
that were the case then it would be something to worry about.
Really, I'd be interested to know what difference these technical distinctions would make and where there is something "wrong". But I've yet to see an argument that I can actually understand. Sorry. I'll just bumble along thinking that the Suttas, Vissudhimagga, and various modern teachers are doing the best they can at explaining about how to do about Dhamma practice.
I imagine that there must be something perceived to be important in these issues, or there wouldn't be so many posts trying to convince people that they (the people) are doing their practice wrong, or thinking about it wrong, and should switch to something else, or think differently. It would be so
much more interesting to hear about the advantages of that "something else".