Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer!
- Hi Tep, (Alex & all),
--- In email@example.com, "Tep Sastri" <indriyabala@...> wrote:
> 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.
S: The concepts such as 'person' seem real to the ignorant worldlings, but this does not mean they are ever real. Even if a Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma, the truths remain the same, concepts are never realities:
AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" (Bodhi transl, "Numerical
"Whether Tathaagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm
and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent...that
all formations are suffering.... that all things are not-self (sabbe dhammaa
"A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully
awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known,
presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are
impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are
>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.
S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities.
>Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises.
S: No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say.
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: