... I don t know it still seems an easy call to me, or am I missing something? A bhava is an arising of the five aggregates is it not? Tell me about thisMessage 1 of 59 , May 30, 2005View Source
> Dear Robert,I don't know it still seems an easy call to me, or am I missing something?
> It doesn't matter what ven.kumara thinks because he doesn't
> have dibba cakkhu to check whether com are completely
> mistaken about this immediate rebirth or not.
A bhava is an arising of the five aggregates is it not? Tell me about this
"antarabhava" that it falls outside of the common definition of "bhava"...
from what I remember about the Tibetan bardo, it is, by Theravada
definition, simply another bhava, not a "between-the-bhavas", whatever that
I think the dibba cakkhu wouldn't help... it just happens to be the manner
in which this funny Thai group has proved that the Buddha is still hanging
around "up there":
"A practicioner of the dhamma who has reached the sabhaava of an ariya
puggala, from sotapanna on up, is able to hear His sweet sound, and see the
Lord Buddha, ... is able to receive the hearing of the Dhammadesana from the
Lord Buddha directly... [Thus we] hold that the Lord Buddha is 'The God' and
still lives on..." (translated from the Thai)
Bhante Kumara, Here is my paper on Mahapajapati. Hope it is useful. Namakkara.m Piya ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Message 59 of 59 , Jun 4, 2005View SourceBhante Kumara,
Here is my paper on Mahapajapati. Hope it is useful.
Kumaara Bhikkhu wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 30-05-05, Ngawang Dorje wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> Heck, there are even some suttas that I can't honestly trust. I know that one of them is rather obviously edited: Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN142). <
> >May I know why you said that the sutta is edited?
> I'm sure Piya can give you a very complete answer to that, but for a start, let me point out something rather glaring.
> According to the sutta, MahaPajapati Gotami, still a lay follower, wished to offer robe cloth to the Buddha, who then asked her to give it to the Sangha instead. Then, the Buddha supposedly mentioned the BhikkhuniSangha as if it already existed. Since it is exceedingly plain in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka that MahaPajapati Gotami was the first bhikkhuni, how can we reconcile this?
> For details, see MLDB, p1349, n1291.
> To reconcile this, we have to either conclude that either this sutta has been edited or the Mahavagga (or both!). I'm inclined to believe that it is the sutta and would like to hear more about it from Piya. Over to you, Bro. Piya.
> Kum�ra Bhikkhu
> ������� An old error is always more popular than a new truth. (German proverb)
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] firstname.lastname@example.org
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links