Re: [dsg] Re: Questions on Samatha.
- Dear Sarah
>....KO: No, we have to be clear on what we are saying. Also the classification of
>S: It is clear to you, it is not clear to others of us.
>Ken, let's just accept that we read the texts and commentaries with a different
>understanding these days. I can quote and quote, but there's no point in it as
>you read those quotes according to your interpretation, the one you believe is
>Later you go on to ask where it says in the Abhidhamma "that panna can only
>arise with nama and rupa as an object". Again and again we all make clear to you
>that no one has said this. I asked you to find a single quote from over 113K
>messages to suggest this and you didn't find a single one:-))The same applies to
>some other comments mis-paraphrasing what Jon, Ken H or I have said. I really
>wonder if you read our comments carefully or just react:-))
>You also ask "what make your reading and meditation so different. Isn't that all
>are attempts by dhamma?" Simply, there are only ever dhammas arising and falling
>away now. It's useless to think in terms of conventional activities with regard
>to the path. If there is right understanding of dhammas now, that is the path.
>If there is wrong understanding or an attempt to change what has been
>conditioned already, that is the wrong path. It doesn't matter when such right
>or wrong understanding occur - it's the citta now that counts, not the
mundane and supradmundane is not according to nama and rupa, or whether nama
rise with panna or not. It is classified whether the cankers are all eradicated
or not. I am not saying what is not say in the comy. But you, Jon and Ken H
have been saying and interpretation dhammas not written in the text. the text
are clear, it is in line with the suttas. I see no conflict.
You have yet show me the text because i know the interpretation by you, Jon
and Ken H are wrong. You are all basing your dhamma on vipassana and not
before vipassana. I find it amazing when we people talk about commentaries and
holding true to it yet we have statements made here that are not supported
by the text. But I can show you the text where concepts are used in the
development of the path. I can show you that satipatthana is not all about
nama and rupa. I can show you what is the diference between mundane and
supramundane panna are using Abhidhamma, comy and sutta and not based on my
there is nothing wroong about mediation, just like there is nothing wrong in
reading a book, the difference are the citta that arise or as you said it is
citta that counts. Then what is the difference between these two then.
Learning nama and rupa is of great benefit. It is not use to differentiate
between dhamma and concept. It is use to develop panna to penetrate the meaning
of anatta and not used to differentiate that panna cannot arise with concepts.
- Hi Ken O.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:
> KO: the three links I give you are all ancient commentaries. Look at the
> commentary translation and forget about the introduction or the preface, look
> below after the sutta ended, that is where the ancient commentary are being
Thank you, I will look those up!
- - - - - - - - - -