I need to comment a little bit in that on an elementary level I kind of knew what I was talking about in that I got the basic gist of the concept, which is somewhat easy for most anyone to understand on an intellectual level, but that is not the whole enchilada (and am not even sure I know what I am talking about here, but food for thought: we do know an enchilada has basic components). To begin, and will make a few more comments later, one thing I wrote was completely wrong ,which goes to show that a ‘clever’ parrot can get the vocalization wrong and then keep repeating it.
Wry, moi, (ha ha) wrote: “Buddhists from this school are not even really supposed to talk about the two aspects of truth unless they are very highly trained, because if this material is presented wrongly, it can lead to a misunderstanding of this teaching and create distortion and even harm.” Woo, and, in short, It is the opposite. People are encouraged to talk about and inquire into and share the two aspects of truth concept (don’t know how many do, though we on the K forums I was on did make an effort to inquire into this). It is the concept of emptiness that what I quoted above actually applies to in that if it is presented in the wrong way it can bring a person into a nihilistic state. A few more comments on that 2006 post Niko quoted to follow, but, also, my present a little more comprehensive understanding of the two aspects will be woven into most all of my posts.
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 