- Thanks for all the great inspiration, Icaro. While you're off
practicing field exercises and whatever, I'll be drilling in grammar &
hoping I'm better at that than I ever was at marching. Looking forward
to hearing the Buddhist cadences you pull out of the Mother's cupboard.
I'm not in the army anymore, but I salute you, Sir.
- Hi Ken,
> -----Original Message-----That's why it is important to know our own limit. We may hear about the
> From: kenhowardau [mailto:kenhowardau@...]
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 11:19 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics......
> --- In email@example.com, "Kom Tukovinit" <komb@s...>
> Thanks for that. We hear a lot about how book knowledge
> is not enough, there has to be practice. And of course,
> this is true but it's hard to see how we can study Dhamma
> without practising it. As you say in the example you
> give, the Dhamma student has to know kusala vipaka citta
> from akusala vipaka citta. No doubt, this will entail
> knowing kusala kamma citta from akusala kamma citta.
> Then it will entail knowing kusala kamma citta
> accompanied by panna, from kusala kamma citta
> unaccompanied by panna.
different dhammas in very intricate details, but we need to realize that not
all those can be known to us. It's possible at least for me to learn more
and more about the differences between lobha and kusala, but it is not
unexpected that the differences between vipaka, and process cittas, may
never be directly known in this life (or the next!).
>The question I ask is that is there an improvement of the knowledge that at
> It's hard to imagine how the Dhamma student could
> investigate these things without, at some stage, wisely
> considering the conditions pertaining here and now. (In
> other words, practising Dhamma.) So we're on the right
> track aren't we?
this very moment, this is dhamma, which is not ours, not us, not within us?
How about thinking? We are so used to think that "I" think (and that what I
think must be right!), but is it really "I" who thinks?