Hi pt (and Sukin and Tam) p: Dhamma theory is really great when you learn the many details. But it all remains just thinking for me. No realities/paramatthaMessage 1 of 339 , Oct 6View Source
Hi pt (and Sukin and Tam)
p: Dhamma theory is really great when you learn the many details. But it all remains just thinking for me. No realities/paramattha dhammas to be found. So, just another way to think about "the world".
----------------------------------------J: I think what you mean is that visible object (for example) does not appear clearly as just visible object. But that does not mean that there is no panna of the satipatthana kind. I'm sure that from your careful consideration of what has been heard and understood there is much you appreciate about dhammas that was not known, not apparent, before the teachings were heard (Tam has given a number of examples in her latest message to you). So there is in fact a better understanding of dhammas than before. It's just that panna is not as developed as we'd like it to be! But of course that is clinging and conceit speaking.Jon
Hi Jon, ... p: Yes, I think survival was my rendering of what you had said, which was probably means of subsistence . ... p: Yes, that makes sense. BestMessage 339 of 339 , Oct 20View SourceHi Jon,
> J: I think that's pretty much how the discussion went. Not sure if I used the word 'survival', but if I did I think I would now prefer to say 'means of subsistence'.p: Yes, I think "survival" was my rendering of what you had said, which was probably "means of subsistence".
> J: Just to supplement a little, I remember it being explained that for a monk, his livelihood is the going on his alms round.p: Yes, that makes sense.