Re: Just checking re concepts and panna
- Hi Howard,
<. . .>
HCW: Cute stuff, Ken. But keep it for someone else, please.
KH: I generally keep it to myself, but it needs to be said occasionally. You and I are talking about two different teachings.
Just as Alex is talking atta-belief to a group on anatta believers, you are talking control-belief to (in my case) a no-control believer.
The difference lies in how we view conditioned dhammas. You say they are just as unreal as concepts, I say they just as real as nibbana.
Whichever way we see it, there is a right way and a wrong way; the two do not go together.
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: I think we need to be careful about considering kusala of any kind as the "middle" between any kinds of akusala. Understanding and equanimity are the "turning away" from attachment of all kinds and the aversion and so on which it brings.
I see what you mean, that it's better to understand kusala as strictly opposite from any kind of akusala.
> The same applies to the Middle Way, the 8fold Path, which is the turning away from all kinds of wrong view under the banners of eternalism and annihilationism, all wrapped up in self-view.
That makes sense - it is more clear than seeing "The Middle Way" as somehow floating around in the middle of akusala.
> > >S: There's a part of the audio I've been transcribing parts of where a friend talks about all the tumult in her life, all the difficulties. K.Sujin's response is not one of feeling sorry, but "just passing dhammas". I may add it tomorrow.
> >R: I could see how the view that difficulties are "just passing dhammas" would tend to promote equanimity too - since there is no need or possibility to do anything about what is happening.
> S: Exactly. This is why reflection on kamma and its results may also condition equanimity. Whatever comes, comes by conditions. The best thing is always the present understanding.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -