Re: Nargajunas Stance... Sarah/Ken (all)
- Dear Tony,
--- In email@example.com, "Tony H" <tony.humphreys@...> wrote:
> >Tony: Nothing exists independently and is therefore lacking any inherent existence.
> >Sarah: What do you mean by "nothing"? Can you give some examples.
> Hi Sarah, I love that question :))) brightened up my morning...I can't really give you an example of No(thing). In context I meant exactly what I wrote...'nothing' excluding nothing, leaving nothing out etc... :)
S: Glad to have brightened up your day:-)) Let's see if I can do it again!! I ask for a lot of clarifications. Grateful if you could keep these very simple and in your own words!
So you would say here that 'heat' is included in 'nothing'. You'd also say 'cooker' is included in 'nothing'.
So you would say 'heat' does not exist independently and therefore heat lacks "inherent existence"? Does this mean that when touching the stove, there is no heat exoerienced? Or what does it mean? If heat is not felt, then what is touched?
You would make no distinction in this context between 'heat' and 'cooker' (or 'stove'). You would say that 'cooker' lacks "inherent existence" as well.
Would you agree that heat arises by conditions, whereas 'cooker' cannot be said to arise by conditions? Would you agree that what arises must exist at such a time of arising?
> >Tony: This is unrefutable and a relentless fact. Things do exist, but not in the way that they appear.
> >S: What do you mean by "things"?
> By 'things' I mean anything you care to choose. Anything at all...any appearance to your mind. That's all it is, an appearance. Not an appearance 'of something'....merely an appearance.
S: So, sticking to the examples of 'heat' and 'cooker', you'd make no distinction. You'd say both 'heat' and 'cooker' exist, but not "as they appear". You would say they both only "appear" to the mind.
So let me ask you again, at the moment of touching the hot cooker, is any heat experienced through the body-sense or does it just "appear to the mind"?
And what does this mean - "appear to the mind"? Does it mean no heat was ever really experienced, only an imaginary idea of 'heat' was thought about?
What is "the mind"?
What is "an appearance"?
> >Tony: Their mode of existence is illusory. This is true for anything and everything that can be brought to the table...including that which you call Ultimate Realities. Nothing at all anywhere ever, escapes the logic of irreducibility...
S: So you are saying that 'heat' is "illusory". Is that correct? What is a "mode of existence" otherwise?
Are you saying that heat is 'illusory' because of 'the logic of irreducibility"? What does this mean? Can we agree that heat is an element which cannot be 'reduced'? If so, why does this make it illusory?
> >Sarah: Let's take the example of 'heat' as you include 'ultimate realities'. What does it mean to say "the mode of existence of heat is illusory"?
> As for heat, cold etc, these "ultimate things," what kind of "ultimate things" are they?
S: You didn't answer my question.
>Piatigorsky, in his studies of the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka texts...
S: I'll wait for you to answer my unanswered qu in your own words first. (Btw, I knew the author a little a long time ago in London. I had started an MA at SOAS in his department before moving to Aus. Could have been lively!)
> Dhammas are "ultimate things" (not ultimate 'realities') only as a way of talking about aspects of the relational flow of experience, not in terms of describing static realities. In other words, dhammas are empty of self...
S: Back to 'heat'. We agree that 'heat' is 'empty of self', i.e. anatta. OK. Heat is not an 'ultimate thing', it is an element (dhatu), a khandha, a paramattha dhamma.
We agree that heat cannot arise on its own, there must be conditions. This does not mean that 'heat', the 'dhamma of heat' is only 'a way of talking' about a 'relational flow...'. It arises with other dhammas or elements, each one anatta, each one falling away by conditions too.
> >Sarah: PLEASE add the name being addressed in a salutation, just 'Sarah' or 'Ken H' or 'All' is fine!
> Thought I had done this...unless you mean in the Subject of the reply - if so apologies, I will in future.
S: Must be a Mahayana 'relational flow 'thingy that makes this so complicated!!! I don't touch the subject heading at all, but start my note to you 'Hi Tony' or 'Tony' and end it with 'Sarah'. You then start your reply with 'Sarah' and end it with 'Tony':-))
- Dear Thomas,
Op 3 aug 2013, om 03:49 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:
> Th: Thanks for your reply. It brought my attention to it. Yes, according to the SN suttas, one should first fully know the phenomena of the five aggregates (nama-rupa) themselves, and then fully see them as anicca, dukkha, or anatta.------
N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words. It is not thinking about them. But for all of us it takes quite some time before we really understand this. We are bound to take thinking for awareness. Above all, there is no person who is trying to know, sati and pa~n~naa perform their functions. They arise because of conditions and these are listening to the Dhamma and considering it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]