Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

discussion from DCG group.

Expand Messages
  • rjkjp1
    I saw this on Dhammachallengedgroup Acronyms: Official DhammaChallengedGroup line [ODCGL]: Intellectually challenged member[ICM] [ODCGL]:Why do you want to
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I saw this on Dhammachallengedgroup
      Acronyms:
      Official DhammaChallengedGroup line [ODCGL]:
      Intellectually challenged member[ICM]

      [ODCGL]:Why do you want to study details of Abhidhamma. it is just book learning!

      [ICM] I wanted to see what it says.

      [ODCGL]:Just be aware of the present moment

      [ICM]I don't see why someone would hold their arm in the air for 20 years. It looks like wrong view.

      [ODCGL]:It just shows you don't understand , Awareness can arise anytime.

      [ICM]Ok when someone says they don't believe in spontaneous beings and rebirth in deva worlds etc, I thought that was a sign of wrong view.

      [ODCGL]: That shows right view. They don't believe in beings.

      [ICM]Ok but can't we speak conventionally.

      [ODCGL]:With metta, We can, you can't.

      [ICM]Ok I think there is only nama and rupa,no beings.

      [ODCGL]:It depends on whether there is panna present when you can say that.[ In your case there is no panna, so it is wrong.]with metta.

      [ICM]Sometimes it looks like people who listen to a guru on a video tell them to focus on a point on the top of their head are having silabataparamasa

      [ODCGL]: that is what vipassana is…. If there is panna.

      [ICM]But if someone writes that they can make sati arise by concentrating it looks like wrong view.

      [ODCGL]: Words can never indicate wrong view or rightview. ………….Although they can help us learn boolean algelbra .

      [ICM]Ok I think I understand now.

      [ODCGL]:with all due metta, We understand you don't!

      [ICM]that seems condescending .

      [ODCGL]:That is because you don't understand Dhamma, in fact the cittas that wrote that were full of metta and wisdom. But there is always hope for you in future lives.

      [ICM]I thought talking about future lives showed wrong view?

      [ODCGL]: that is when you say it. When we say it, we are talking conventionally about the stream of khandhas arising and passing

      [ICM]Oh good, I would like to talk about the stream of khandas.

      [ODCGL]:You believe in a self.

      [ICM] I was just saying that..

      [ODCGL]:Don't talk about streams of cittas or khandhas, it's self view.

      =====================
      [ICM]I would like to discuss some points on akasa (space)

      [ODCGL]:why not just be aware?

      [ICM]Ok anyway in this post about akasa one of elders writes that ..

      [ODCGL]:That is just book knowledge, why not be aware now..

      [ICM]Why was it written then?

      [ODCGL]: you wouldn't get it.
      ============================================
      [ICM]about the man who holds his hand in the air, he was talking about flux..

      [ODCGL]: YOU SEE, it shows his deep understanding ..

      [ICM]But he was talking about the flux in his body, as in dysentery.

      [ODCGL]:Words can never indicate right or wrong view


      [ICM]If I say "be aware now" or "be aware of the present moment" that is ok though?

      [ODCGL]:Yes. All discussions on dcg are about this.

      [ICM]Umm one more question..

      [ODCGL]:You again?

      [ICM]Umm if I say 'be aware of the present moment' does it show that panna is present?

      [ODCGL]:Yes!

      [ICM]Ok thanks. I thought right view and wrong view can't be known from words or discussion?

      [ODCGL]:That is right: Concepts and realities are completely different, never the twain shall meet.
      Anyway if you stick to looking up things in the commentaries and quoting them that is fine. Just don't make any typos.

      [ICM]But I thought that comes under "scholarly discussions", not relevant to the present moment.

      [ODCGL]:Yes, but its probably all you are capable of.. With all metta
    • jonoabb
      Hi RobK (122922) ... J: There seems to be a trend on the list lately to discuss manifestations of right or wrong view, rather than discussing the underlying
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi RobK

        (122922)
        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I saw this on Dhammachallengedgroup
        > Acronyms:
        > Official DhammaChallengedGroup line [ODCGL]:
        > Intellectually challenged member[ICM]
        > ...
        > [ICM] I don't see why someone would hold their arm in the air for 20 years. It looks like wrong view.
        >
        > [ODCGL]:It just shows you don't understand , Awareness can arise anytime.
        > ===============

        J: There seems to be a trend on the list lately to discuss manifestations of right or wrong view, rather than discussing the underlying dhamma issue itself.

        As an example of what I mean, nobody would disagree with the proposition that to hold one's arm in the air with the idea that one was thereby developing the path ("Proposition A") would be wrong view.

        However, when it comes to the proposition that a person who has been holding his arm in the air for the past X years, must be having wrong view ("Proposition B"), that is quite a different matter. It is no longer a matter of the underlying Dhamma issue (Proposition A) as such, but of having to make assumptions and consider various possibilities.

        As just one example, while the person in Proposition B was no doubt motivated by wrong view in the first place, it's difficult to speak with much confidence about his views at the present time, given that he presumably would no longer be capable of lowering his arm even if he had seen the error of his ways and wanted to!

        So perhaps ICM's frustration stems in part from a failure to appreciate this distinction.

        Rob, I have noticed quite a few threads on the list lately, some involving you, where the discussion has been at cross purposes for somewhat similar reasons. I urge you to have another look at your recent exchanges with these comments in mind.

        Hoping you will continue to participate on the list.

        Jon
      • scottduncan2
        Jon, ...where the discussion has been at cross purposes for somewhat similar reasons... Scott: Just out of curiosity, can you say more about what this is
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Jon,

          "...where the discussion has been at cross purposes for somewhat similar reasons..."

          Scott: Just out of curiosity, can you say more about what this is referring to? I mean 'discussion...at cross purposes.' Which purposes do you see as crossing in the general discussion on the list?

          Scott.
        • jonoabb
          Hi Scott ... I m not sure if cross purposes was the correct expression, but what I meant was just what I was trying to highlight about Rob s tongue in cheek
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Scott

            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" <scduncan@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jon,
            >
            > "...where the discussion has been at cross purposes for somewhat similar reasons..."
            >
            > Scott: Just out of curiosity, can you say more about what this is referring to? I mean 'discussion...at cross purposes.' Which purposes do you see as crossing in the general discussion on the list?
            > ===============

            I'm not sure if "cross purposes" was the correct expression, but what I meant was just what I was trying to highlight about Rob's tongue in cheek exchange: that one person was speaking about dhammas while the other was speaking about situations and not fully appreciating the difference.

            I hope this clarifies.

            Jon
          • scottduncan2
            Dear Jon, J: I m not sure if cross purposes was the correct expression, but what I meant was just what I was trying to highlight about Rob s tongue in cheek
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jon,

              J: "I'm not sure if 'cross purposes' was the correct expression, but what I meant was just what I was trying to highlight about Rob's tongue in cheek exchange: that one person was speaking about dhammas while the other was speaking about situations and not fully appreciating the difference..."

              Scott: Okay, I get it now. I would suggest that wrestling with this distinction *is* at the heart of matter. I keep suggesting that this distinction is blurred in different ways according to the aim of the particular point wishing to be made. I opine that posts on a list can *only* be conceptual and that, at times, the literality of things is taken to the point of absurdity in the interest of other aims.

              Scott.
            • jonoabb
              Hi Scott ... J: I m not trying to avoid whatever dhamma issue it is you re wishing to discuss, it s just that I can t really get the point you re making :-))
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 2, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Scott

                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" <scduncan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear Jon,
                >
                > J: "I'm not sure if 'cross purposes' was the correct expression, but what I meant was just what I was trying to highlight about Rob's tongue in cheek exchange: that one person was speaking about dhammas while the other was speaking about situations and not fully appreciating the difference..."
                >
                > Scott: Okay, I get it now. I would suggest that wrestling with this distinction *is* at the heart of matter. I keep suggesting that this distinction is blurred in different ways according to the aim of the particular point wishing to be made. I opine that posts on a list can *only* be conceptual and that, at times, the literality of things is taken to the point of absurdity in the interest of other aims.
                > ===============

                J: I'm not trying to avoid whatever dhamma issue it is you're wishing to discuss, it's just that I can't really get the point you're making :-)) If you could state it as a clear proposition I'd be happy to respond.

                Jon
              • scottduncan2
                Jon, J: I m not trying to avoid whatever dhamma issue it is you re wishing to discuss, it s just that I can t really get the point you re making ... If you
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 2, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jon,

                  J: "I'm not trying to avoid whatever dhamma issue it is you're wishing to discuss, it's just that I can't really get the point you're making ... If you could state it as a clear proposition I'd be happy to respond."

                  Scott: Not trying to make any point, Jon, other than to paraphrase what I thought you had said. Your clarification was quite clear to me. No Dhamma to discuss here. You simply answered my question.

                  Scott.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.