69036Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2
- Mar 1 9:04 AMHi Nina
In a message dated 3/1/2007 3:36:34 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
There is nothing left of that lute.
Seeing falls away, and I do not see a gradual change of seeing.
Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. There is no time for a
TG: I fail to see how the Sutta on the lute backs this up one iota. There
are various suttas where the Buddha speaks about gradual change... A ship
being slow withered away due to weathering. A mountain slowing declining in
height generating after generation, the Adze handle gradually wearing away over
the course of time, a mountain crag being worn away by a kasi cloth over
periods of time measured in terms of aeons (different than the first mountain
I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and immediately
ceasing" outlook. So far, your two Sutta examples don't in any way, yet you
comment (indirectly) as if they do ... which is interesting.
TG: I personally think the above account of impermanence -- rupas
by new rupas, etc. -- is just flat wrong and not useful in applying
Also, it lacks a conditional component which I think is
N: Eyesense falls away and is replaced, otherwise you would not be
seeing now. So long as kamma produces eyesense in your life there are
conditions for seeing. You do not create your own seeing, you do not
TG: Kamma is not a "something" that produces eye sense either. It is
conditions that generate what arises and it is conditions that disintegrate the
same. Kamma is one of many conditions necessary for eye sense. Eye sense
varies IN ACCORDANCE to conditions. I do not consider it to be "popping on and
The three sentences in your statement above are unrelated so its hard to
figure out what you're getting at. At any rate, the last sentence is hardly
something that someone would need to be trying to convince me of.
Concitions are being taught all the time, both for namas and for
rupas. Also, when we realize that a reality that falls away falls
away completely, helps us to have less conceit, clinging to my
TG: I think it would be better to get rid of thinking of phenomena as
"realities" or "dhammas" and instead directly realize that all conditions,
experienced and otherwise, are empty of self or anything of "their" own. They are
resultants and echoes of "other" empty resultants/echoes. They are hollow of
essence, they are insubstantial, they are like phantoms, they are like death,
they are affliction.
Even when we understand this in theory, it
helps us to think in the correct way. This can condition direct
understanding. We have to begin somewhere and the right beginning,
correct intellectual understanding is what supports the development
of insight later on. Gradually so! Don't you think so?
TG: Gradually? Why would "understanding" be gradual from your point of
view? Would it not arise and then immediately cease???
At any rate, yes, correct intellectual understanding is crucial. Now as to
what that "correct understanding" is ... that is the matter we disagree on to
some significant extent. :-) But, that's what makes it interesting to
discuss with you and others.
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>