Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

37205Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman

Expand Messages
  • Egbert
    Oct 2, 2004
      Hi Christine,

      If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of
      Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways.

      >
      > 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
      > (paramattha dhammas)"

      =======

      I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching
      and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not
      find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very
      stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that
      section would be a waste of my time and energy.

      It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive
      section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the
      discussions have moved elsewhere.

      I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or
      respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit,
      while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as
      from the threads initiated by others.

      Kind Regards


      Herman


      >
      > Shortened Useful Post Link
      > http://tinyurl.com/2c0k
      >
      > metta and peace,
      > Christine
      > ---The trouble is that you think you have time---
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" <hhofman@t...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > 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
      > that
      > > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this
      is
      > > true.
      > > >
      > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      > --
      > > >
      > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that
      > > exist.
      > > >
      > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not
      > > arise,
      > >
      > > > 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
      > > messages.
      > > > Howard's tree is its extension.
      > > >
      > >
      > > =======
      > > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall
      > away
      > >
      > > 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
      > > time.
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > >
      > > Herman
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic