Re: conventional still matters
- Hi Connie.
--- In email@example.com, "connie" <nichicon@...> wrote:
> Hi RobE,
> in one term, "why the Buddha spoke" at all: compassion.
> what does 'conventional' mean, anyway?
Well, conventional means that the actual terms that are spoke of are what are thought of as concepts in Abdhidhamma-based understanding, rather than direct talk of dhammas. And if there is nothing but dhammas, and concepts have no import or weight of any kind, one would one speak of them? It only adds to the confusion that such things really exist, does it not, for those who might not see them as merely conceptual? If the Buddha speaks about 'right speech' in terms of what is said, rather than the namas and rupas involved, it appears to just be causing confusion, or else it must have some purpose.
What does "conventional" mean, anyway? Good question - if there is no division between conventional and paramatha, then the whole idea of paramatha falls apart, doesn't it? So is there a distinction, or not?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi Rob ERE: Hi Jon.
> RE: I will get into the next part about the Satipatthana sutta later, as I need to look at it to continue the discussion.
> J: Glad to hear you'll be checking out the text of the sutta for a change!! :-))
:-) I appreciate what I desperately hope is your humor here, and if so, is very funny.
I will get back to you with the usual sutta quotes as soon as I can. :-)
Very very funny, Jon. ; - /
- - - - - - - - - -
J: You may have forgotten in the confusion over the new format that you have already come back with a quote from the Satipatthana Sutta. My reply to your message can be found here: