dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi
- Hello Connie, all,
>C:hmm... i think it goes back to "momentary existence" again: a >dhamma, even while having an identity or 'being', is neither static >nor permanent, but undergoes the whole arising, (changing while) >standing & falling away (never to arise again) cycle.Buddha rejected eternalism or annihilationism of sabhava Atta because there isn't Atta to be annihilated or to exist eternally.
Does sabhava dhamma perish? If so it is annihilationism. If it exists eternally, then how can there be momentariness?
So while dhamma theory avoids eternalism or annihilationism when it comes to sabhava Atta, it itself doesn't avoid the pitfall of annihilationism. So how isn't it Uccheda-ditthi that as miccha-ditthi precludes even stream-entry?
Do you understand the full weight of this issue? As long as one holds Uccheda-ditthi, maggaphala cannot occur.
With best wishes,
pt: "...Yes, I see how it would appear that way. So, intention as in cetana that takes the same object as the citta(s) - concept of a person, rather than intention as in 'intending' something to be this or that."
Scott: Yeah, I don't know about this. Ken O. is talking about concepts as objects of satipa.t.thaana but I've not seen his definition of satipa.t.thaana yet. Meditators get hung up with cetanaa too. Careful.
pt: "Also, thank you for the time you took to reply to my posts, interesting discussions, sorry I'm slow, will get to responding as soon as I manage to finish the report on discussions in Manly."
Scott: Oh, so Rob K. and Manly discussion come before me. And I thought you loved me more than that. Ha ha. Take you time and go one at a time over weeks and weeks. Suck the candy, don't chew it.