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

Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas

Expand Messages
  • truth_aerator
    Hi RobertE, Pt, all, ... It is intentional or unintentional sophism to take a sutta framed in conventional speech, turn it into ultimate speech , and then use
    Message 1 of 339 , Aug 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi RobertE, Pt, all,

      >RE:Alex, I agree that the Buddha instructed us to do certain kinds of >actions and practices in order to promote the path, and that it is an >intellectual trick in a way to say "that's not what he really meant, >because there are only dhammas."
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      It is intentional or unintentional sophism to take a sutta framed in conventional speech, turn it into "ultimate speech", and then use certain interpretation of ultimate speech to make the sutta mean OPPOSITE of what it actually says. It also is insulting to compilers to assume that they couldn't frame the sutta correctly to mean what it means thus deluding followers and commentators for 2,500 years.

      Paramattha sacca doesn't even refute practice. Mahasi Sayadaw is heavy into Abhidhamma and yet taught a very rigorous practice. So if the venerable who "was a questioner and final editor at the Sixth Buddhist Council on May 17, 1954" . I hate to argue from authority, but take this or that Acharn who teaches that paramatthasacca means "no practice" and compare backgrounds. :)



      >RE:..."If there are only dhammas, and no conventional >activities, >why refrain from doing anything? Why not instead do >everything the >Buddha prescribed...
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


      Good point!


      Also let us not forget "emergent property". This totally wrecks the entire "chariot simile". And while a whole is made of parts, it is NOT reducible them. So with this in mind, how can we say that a person is reducible to citta/cetasika/rupa ?


      With best wishes,

      Alex
    • ptaus1
      Hi Jon, ... p: Yes, I think survival was my rendering of what you had said, which was probably means of subsistence . ... p: Yes, that makes sense. Best
      Message 339 of 339 , Oct 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jon,

        > J:  I think that's pretty much how the discussion went.  Not sure if I used the word 'survival', but if I did I think I would now prefer to say 'means of subsistence'.  

        p: Yes, I think "survival" was my rendering of what you had said, which was probably "means of subsistence".

        > J: Just to supplement a little, I remember it being explained that for a monk, his livelihood is the going on his alms round.
        p: Yes, that makes sense.
         
        Best wishes
        pt
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.