Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer!
- Hi Alex and all.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
> Hello Sukin, Robert E, all,
> >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control,
> How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes...
I think the understanding that conventional activities have no relation to Dhamma is based on a very technical belief that such things do not really exist. Since only momentary dhammas are actual, anything that is based on conceptual understanding such as a person, killing, eating, walking, cars, animals - are all not real. They are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities that are apprehended directly.
So we don't really see a "person" or even a "body" in front of us, just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating actually taking place as an ongoing activity. There's hardness, nutriment, visual object, all these experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating."
I personally think there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" in such a view. It assumes that "ultimate" means "only" and that the fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. It is frowned on here, in my experience, to make a connection between dhammas and conventional objects and activities, but I don't think the Abhidhamma was meant to deny the existence of conventional doings - just to give the most accurate view of how things are experienced through the six doors.
I also feel that the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc. But those who believe in the technical view of dhammas think this is also concept and not accurate.
> At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can even lead to Dhamma wisdom.
I agree, but those who differ feel that all efforts to reach enlightenment impose a concept of self that can control the path. I don't think this is true either, but "never the twain shall meet."
= = = = = = = = =
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: