37204Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman
- Oct 2, 2004Hello Herman, (Htoo), all,
To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a
quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts
(pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities
Shortened Useful Post Link
metta and peace,
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
--- In email@example.com, "Egbert" <hhofman@t...>
> Hi Htoo,
> Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than
> before. See below.
> > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making
> > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is--
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that
> > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not
> > it does not need to fall away.
> > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he
> > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old
> > Howard's tree is its extension.
> The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall
> So the tree does not arise, does not fall away?
> There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject.
> There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which
> give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or
> falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised
> that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the
> There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that
> the tree as thought arises and falls away.
> So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not
> fall away?
> Sorry if I am too persistent :-)
> Kind Regards
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>