37205Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman
- Oct 2, 2004Hi Christine,
If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of
Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways.
>a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts
> To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having
> (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.
> 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
> > before. See below.is
> > ====
> > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making
> > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this
> > 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
> > 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
> > the tree as thought arises and falls away.not
> > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does
> > fall away?
> > Sorry if I am too persistent :-)
> > Kind Regards
> > Herman
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>