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

Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi

Expand Messages
  • amara chay
    ... in what I ... hear ... as it was ... What I ... the ... Dear MO, Evam me sutam means this is what I heard, it does not specify whether it is second, third
    Message 1 of 80 , Dec 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.
      What I
      > hear in these lines is "What I hear is that Ananda heard this was
      > Buddha's word from Sariputta."

      Dear MO,

      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
      itself to
      > 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
      the Past
      > or of the Present or of the Future? Is a citana the self? Does
      citana belong
      > 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";
      not to
      > 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
      Dhamma. I
      > 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,

    • amara chay
      ... Dear Mike, Thanks for all your kind remarks, and for this word, although I think the meaning is a bit wider than what I intended: in my 10th ed. Webster s
      Message 80 of 80 , Jan 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > All the experienceable (is there such a
        > > word?)
        > ['experiential' works, I think]

        Dear Mike,

        Thanks for all your kind remarks, and for this word, although I think
        the meaning is a bit wider than what I intended: in my 10th ed.
        Webster's Collegiate it says 'relating to, derived from, or providing
        experience'. (It's only the providing part I tried to convey!)

        Would love other suggestions, by the way! Thanks in advance,

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.