> One thing I note about just this: Whereas the Suttas are presented
in what I
> would call "2nd hand" form; this quote comes down 4th hand. When we
> Evam me sutam, we are hearing Ananda say that he either heard this
as it was
> spoken or heard it repeated to him by the Buddha at a later time.
> hear in these lines is "What I hear is that Ananda heard this was
> Buddha's word from Sariputta."
Evam me sutam means this is what I heard, it does not specify whether
it is second, third or fourth hand. In fact several suttas are
recounted as accounts heard from another party to whom that event was
told by one of the original participants. And the Buddhist teachings
were first passed on by rote, several hundred arahanta recited exactly
the same words without deviation, since there were no self or mana of
any degree in the persons concerned, their memories were not like
anything anyone thick with the self and kilesa could understand or
imagine. It is not like the Bible where the apostles, however few
they were in the New Testament, for example, each told different
details about the birth of Christ, etc. Here every syllable was the
same. Whether the teachings are true has to be proven by the
individual and their accumulations, what remains universal is that
each being has eyes, ears, noses, tongues, bodysense and mind, and
that is what the Buddha taught about that no other religion does.
Whether he talked about them or not theses realities exist and whether
we live in ignorance taking them for the self some God created or know
them as they really are, realities that are impermanent that should
not be taken for the self depends very much on the individual's
> In the end it doesn't matter in that if there is no incongruity with
> suttas it is Dhamma. On the other hand if this work were to show
> have been put into the public view under false pretences, it would
> reflect well on the knowledge of the Dhamma of those who perpetrated
> hoax, and one would need to exercise extra special scrutiny of every
> proposition, comparing each line to the suttas, and, as such, would
> constitute a monumental waste of time.
I am sure that if you could prove that this were true you would not be
asking any questions here.
> So let me ask a question concerning dhamma of you or of anyone else
> cares to reply. There was talk here about citanas. Can someone place
> citanas for me in terms of the pancakkhandhas? What is a citana?
What is the
> origin of a citana? What sustains a citana? What is the end of a
> What is the way that leads to the end of a citana? Is the citana of
> or of the Present or of the Future? Is a citana the self? Does
> to the self? Is citana derived of the self? Is the self an aspect of
As Robert said, citanas do not exist. The citta is vinnana khandha.
The cetana cetasika is sankhara khandha. You take both for the self,
plus a lot of other realities, because of ignorance.
> Would you say it was true or not that Penetrating Knowledge of
> constituted knowing that citanas were changeable, not-self, and
> they were not self carried potential danger of causing Pain to the
> one was attached to them?
> Would you say that it was true or not that as seekers we should be
> ourselves not to think about "citanas"; not to think "I am citanas";
> think "citanas are mine"; not to think "I am made of citanas" or
> are made of me"? If the answer to this is that it is not true that
> seekers this should be our practice, then what is the release from
> I am just asking. I would like to know. This is the essence of my
> into the Abhidhamma. Not simply the inquiry concerning citanas, for
> but this is the pattern of my concern. I see in those who study the
> Abhidhamma an obsession with Dhamma that is to my mind contrary to
> have joined this group to learn if this conception of mine is just a
> My questions are structured but not argumentative. I am sincere.
I would suggest that you read the book Summary of Paramatthadhamma in
the advanced section of <http://DhammaStudy.com
> for more precise
terminology on which to base our discussions and perhaps a more solid
understanding of the abhidhamma, then if you have any more questions
we could discuss them more clearly.
Anumodana in your sincere interest,