the immediate vibrations that i felt while resembling a few words and subtitles from the film were "dharma", "slaves," etc. it was astonishing to interpret whether they are taken the same as "dhamma", "untouchables/achoot"? if yes, why are they being replaced interchangeably? likewise, the usage of the word "god" by xuan zang was a point to consider in the same line of inquiry.
what is more interesting i saw, which i was expecting more descriptively, but the movie restrained only to two points, was the debate between mahayana and hinayana. the film emphasized more on xuan zang's scholarly understanding that 1) hinayana is more individualistic and abstract. in contrast, the mahayana is more extensive in assimilating 'others' into the 'self'. 2) hinayana believes that the 'universe' is material. but 'perception' is illusionary. while mahayana believes both are mutable and illusionary.
mahayana sees the universe's true face_ all is mutable, and all is illusionary. this point was profound for me, and i think i need to follow them through readings and processes. the missing thing i felt within this debate was pranagupta's critique of mahayana. it was mentioned but not explained.
📑 xuan zang_
🖋 @dnyanesh_____
🌱 read this piece on blogspot, link is in the bio.
 |
| The movie, Xuan Zang. |
