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

Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer!

Expand Messages
  • Tep Sastri
    Hi Rob E., Alex (Sukin + others) - You say there are three assumptions [A1 - A3] that underlie the dogmatic idea (proposed by Sukin, for example), i.e., one
    Message 1 of 483 , Apr 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rob E., Alex (Sukin + others) -

      You say there are three assumptions [A1 - A3] that underlie the dogmatic idea (proposed by Sukin, for example), i.e., "one cannot engage with meditation without indulging self-view", as follows.

      A1. Conventional activities and anything that is based on conceptual understanding are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities <momentary dhammas> that are apprehended directly.
      A2. We only see just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating only experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating."
      A3. The fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. (This is because there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" : it assumes that "ultimate" means "only".)

      Your rebuts [R1-R3]:

      R1. 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.
      R2. (I think) the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc.
      R3. 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.
      ............

      T: Allow me to offer some thoughts for your consideration. My rebut to A1 - A3 is the following:
      I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: they are everything the non-ariyans understand. A person (puggala) for example is real. The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises.

      I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. These sabhava dhammas do not depend on time, place, people or their thoughts. No matter how many trillion years may pass by, no matter how many Buddhas will be born to teach people, the same essence is still seen and the Noble Eightfold Path will always be the same.

      Concerning your R2, I think all conditioned dhammas --internal or external-- are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta.

      I agree 100% with your R3.

      Be happy,
      Tep
      ===
      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Alex and all.
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "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...
      >
    • jonoabb
      Hi Rob E RE: 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
      Message 483 of 483 , Oct 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Rob E

         

        RE: 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!! :-))


        RE:

        :-)  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.   ; - /


        Best,

        Rob  E.


        - - - - - - - - - -


        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:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dhammastudygroup/conversations/messages/133161


        Jon

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