Re: [dsg] October thoughts from Cooran
- Hi Sarah and all,
Regarding the expression 'Buckley's chance' - there are lots of
explanations as to who was the original Buckley - the explanation in
this link is as good as any, and probably no more accurate than the
Buckley's chance = no chance at all.
Christine said: > There was a discussion on an article by Maurice
Walshe (translator of
> the Digha Nikaya) about Dana - "Giving from the Heart" about....
> intention and recipients (which also included a very interesting
> remark about the Vesantara Jataka :-)).
Sarah said: > As it's a :-)) one, you'd better share it, Chris.
Christine: O.K. - but only because you asked :-)) - and, seriously,
because it is such a relief to me to read Walshe's remarks in this
excerpt from "Giving from the Heart"
"In point of fact, one of the true benefits to the giver is precisely
that the act of spontaneous giving is a very fine way of helping to
overcome attachment. And that is the intended point of the Vessantara
story. We Westerners think of the unfortunate wife and family the
Bodhisatta "sacrificed" (though of course there was happy ending and
they came back to him, in the story!), but the intention is to regard
them as objects of attachment, to be given up as such. As a matter of
fact, despite the popularity of this particular story, modern
scholars consider that it was not originally a Buddhist tale at all,
and was somewhat unskillfully adapted to provide a "Buddhist"
metta and peace,
---The trouble is that you think you have time ---
--- In email@example.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
- Hi Ken H (& Michael),
It's OK, this is the last;-)
--- kenhowardau <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
> The interpretations I meant were the ones I referred to....
> as found in the commentaries to the Satipatthana Sutta.
> (about jackalls and babies)
> In my early days of Dhamma study, there were popular
> Buddhists books telling me how to 'practise satipatthana.'
> The idea was that I should concentrate on (be mindful of)
> everything I did in daily life: 'When you are making a
> pot of tea, know you are making a pot of tea . . as you
> see the tea pot, know you are seeing the tea pot . . as
> you reach for it, . . as you feel the elbow straighten . .
> the fingers straighten . . the touch of the tea pot . . .'
> These silly, impractical instructions are impossible to
> comply with for more than a few seconds; More to the point,
> they are ineffective and counterproductive and they make a
> mockery of the Dhamma.
;-) Funny, as I was lifting the tea pot this morning, I was thinking of
this and chuckling to myself....
> As you know, it is possible for wholesome consciousness....
> to experience unwholesome consciousness. By normal
> logic, this should not be possible. But, in the
> billionth of a second (or so) after a dhamma has ceased
> to exist, the succeeding mental factors can know its
> characteristics just as clearly as if it were still
including wrong view;-)
> That's all I was trying to describe in my previous...
> message -- vipassana consciousness sharing the same
> object as the previous jhana consciousness and so,
> effectively, the two operating together.
Wouldn't the object of the vipassana consciousness be one of the jhana
factors or a reality such as the hardness of breath as opposed to the
concept experienced by the previous jhana consciousness? Of course when
they are coupled, the object (reality) is experienced by jhana level
concentration etc. But then the factors are arising together. I'm getting
into hot water here too. Nina may need to rescue us.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk