116164Re: Q. [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O -
- Jul 13 5:42 AMThank you, Nina!! :-)
P. S. My very best to Lodewijk!
In a message dated 7/13/2011 5:43:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
I agree and meant it like you said; not a self or soul is there only
Op 12-jul-2011, om 14:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
> I do think your answer makes sense, Nina. What, however, is your[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> understanding of his knowing "that Saariputta was there"?
> I take it to mean that the Buddha knew that within what is called
> "physical proximity," the relatively clear and pure stream/
> whirlpool of mental
> and physical phenomena conventionally identified as "Saariputta" was
> present and active. The Buddha knew that there was no separate
> entity there, no
> self and no soul and no real being named "Saariputta", but the
> that are the basis for the Saariputta concept were, indeed, rising
> and falling
> in a coherent and lawful manner.
- << Previous post in topic