Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!
- Hi Sarah (Alex, others) -
In response to Alex's now-famous one-line quip: "If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer!", we wrote the following comments:
>T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it?I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena".
> S: Yes, the bodily experience and painful bodily feeling accompanying it are real. The hardness experienced is real, very real! So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when there are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby will not think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever concepts there are conditions to think about.T: I do not agree that "there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors", dear Sarah. Since you only "see" the ultimate reality or sabhava-dhamma, you are like the atomic physicist who only "sees" atoms; and he misses a whole lot of the realities that other people see. In your example, animal and baby do not have the experience of the world at large, so a baby does not know "this is a hammer", but it sees and knows "this is my milk".
> S: Well, to use your analogy, what do you expect the atomic physicist to see?T: He must see his wife at home as a person whom he loves, not a collection of atoms (although that is also a reality). Otherwise, he would have a big trouble!
--- In email@example.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> Hi Tep (& Alex),
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: