- Dear Phil and Jagkrit, ... N: What is abhidhamma? As T.A. explained: seeing now is abhidhamma, or dhamma. Abhidhamma pertains to realities that appear now. AsMessage 1 of 149 , Oct 4, 2013View SourceDear Phil and Jagkrit,N: What is abhidhamma? As T.A. explained: seeing now is abhidhamma, or dhamma. Abhidhamma pertains to realities that appear now. As she said: we study that which appears now, not that what does not appear.Now another subject: I heard on a Thai recording that she quoted from the co. to the Cariyapi.taka about four kinds of bhaavanaa:1. sabba sambhaara bhaavanaa: all kinds of kusala that are the requisites of enlightenment are to be developed. In some lives we cannot hear the Dhamma, but then other perfections can be developed, such as patience and mettaa. We are reminded not to be careless. When hearing the Dhamma there can be right consideration, yoniso manasikara and this is a condition for understanding the naama and ruupa that appear.2. nirantara bhaavanaa. Uninterrupted development. That is, in different lives. It depends on the kind of rebirth, in some lives it is not possible. But then again in a following life understanding can be developed. Again and again.3. ciira kala bhaavanaa. Development for a long, long time. A quick result cannot be expected. One has to take into consideration aeons.4. Development with respect, in order to eradicate defilements. Respect for kusala, that can relinquish akusala. One must be someone who has heard much, bahusutta, listen much and apply.------P.S. Jagkrit, no 4, with respect, I did not hear the Thai well, sakkata bhaavanaa? Dooj kawrop. What is the Pali?Nina.
- Hi Alex RE: The neti-neti technique is used by philosophically inclined *Hindus* and the idea that Atman cannot be described but exists is a *Hindu* idea.Message 149 of 149 , Dec 30, 2013View SourceHi Alex
>RE: The "neti-neti" technique is used by philosophically inclined *Hindus* and the idea that Atman cannot be >described but exists is a *Hindu* idea. It is the opposite of the Buddhist idea of anatta, and is one of the >major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism
How do we know that Buddha (who was raised as a Hindu) didn't use the same technique?
RE: Because he didn't teach it.
Alex: BTW, I do not believe in an Atman. I am just pointing out flawed argument.
RE: It's only flawed if you ignore the logic of the argument. The Buddha made other statements that more conclusively showed that there is no self.
When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Clearly, this shows the viewpoint that any view of self or personal identity is what causes suffering. Anatta is not just a parlor game of saying a few things are "not it."
- - - - - - - - -