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

Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 1:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@webtv.net ... =========================== Honestly I m not prepared to even
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Larry -

      In a message dated 2/1/04 1:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@...
      writes:

      > Hi Howard,
      >
      > Sorry for misrepresenting you. You are quite right. You were talking
      > about nothing to hold on to; I was talking about an infinite regress,
      > and Michael was talking about beginningless time. So what does "complete
      > emptiness" mean? If reality is not "made of something" is it
      > unconditioned?
      >
      > Larry
      >
      ===========================
      Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what reality
      might "be". I don't think it is even expressible. My words "complete emptiness and
      ungroundedness" are a completely inadequate pointing at something I've had at
      best the slightest glimpse of "through the corner of my eye", and I may well
      be mistaken in thinking that I really even had a glimpse!
      The Buddha never talked about what "reality" is, and he saw it fully
      and perfectly. Aren't we a bit silly to attempt to come up with conventional
      designations of what is beyond convention, and which we have never truly
      experienced?

      With metta,
      Howard


      /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
      in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
      phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kenneth Ong
      Hi Michael No that is not a good comparision, you are talking about origination and one that is about khandhas. There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Michael

        No that is not a good comparision, you are talking about origination
        and one that is about khandhas. There is no sub khandhas and you
        still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite
        regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism.


        best wishes
        Ken O

        --- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@...> wrote: > Larry,
        >
        > That is what the Buddha meant when he said that there is no
        > beginning
        > discernible in samsara.
        >
        > Metta
        > Michael
        >
        >

        ________________________________________________________________________
        BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
      • Larry
        Hi Howard, Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose that s commendable, but it isn t much fun. Larry ... reality ...
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Howard,

          Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose
          that's commendable, but it isn't much fun.

          Larry


          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
          > Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what
          reality
          > might "be". >
          >
          <snip>
        • Michael Beisert
          Hello KenO, KenO: There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite regression is not valid in Thervada
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello KenO,

            KenO:
            There is no sub khandhas and you
            still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite
            regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism.


            Michael:
            Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas are just a
            bunch of conditions which come together and because of that coming together
            a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a khandha. It will not be
            difficult to see that this bunch of conditions can be regarded as 'sub
            khandhas'.

            Metta
            Michael

            _________________________________________________________________
            Find high-speed �net deals � comparison-shop your local providers here.
            https://broadband.msn.com
          • Michael Beisert
            Hello Larry. I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Larry.

              I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of
              conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the
              coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also subject
              to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that the
              beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I would call
              reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something
              intrinsic.

              Metta
              Michael


              >From: LBIDD@...
              >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
              >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas
              >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:11:14 -0700 (MST)
              >
              >Hi Michael & Howard,
              >
              >Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite
              >regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If
              >you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that
              >something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real?
              >Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality
              >to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no
              >illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say?
              >
              >Larry
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/
              >
              >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > dhammastudygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >

              _________________________________________________________________
              Find high-speed �net deals � comparison-shop your local providers here.
              https://broadband.msn.com
            • upasaka@aol.com
              Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@webtv.net ... Howard: ;-)) ... ======================== Well, I guess it is an
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi, Larry -

                In a message dated 2/1/04 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@...
                writes:

                >
                > Hi Howard,
                >
                > Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose
                > that's commendable, but it isn't much fun.
                ---------------------------------------------
                Howard:
                ;-))
                --------------------------------------------
                >
                > Larry
                >
                >
                ========================
                Well, I guess it is an overstatement to say I have no views with
                regard to "reality". I do, but I don't think that views are worth all that much.
                But just say something (so that we can have some fun! ;-), I'll
                blather a bit:
                I think that there is a vastness to "reality". I think that it may be
                thought of as a "rather glorious" and vast web of intimately related,
                interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable phenomena-events, without ground. I
                think that there is nothing in "reality" that has separate, independent, or
                lasting existence, that there is nothing therein that can be pinned down or
                grasped in the slightest, that there is no core to be found anywhere, and, most
                particularly, that there are no knowing selves/subjects, but that knowing and
                known are inseparable.
                But, finally, I must add that "reality" is actually not at all what I
                have just said, because it's nature is beyond the capacity for language and
                thought to express.

                With metta,
                Howard

                /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • upasaka@aol.com
                Hi again, Larry - I just reread my opinion on what reality is, and, quite honestly, not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi again, Larry -

                  I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite honestly,
                  not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench to it,
                  being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So, please take
                  what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the grain of salt
                  and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more!

                  With metta,
                  Howard

                  /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                  in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                  phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Larry
                  Hi Michael, This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem with. What I don t really understand is what is a condition if that is all there
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Michael,

                    This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem
                    with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that
                    is all there is?

                    Larry

                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert"
                    <mbeisert@h...> wrote:
                    > Hello Larry.
                    >
                    > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms
                    of
                    > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena
                    being the
                    > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also
                    subject
                    > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that
                    the
                    > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I
                    would call
                    > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something
                    > intrinsic.
                    >
                    > Metta
                    > Michael
                  • Larry
                    Hi Howard, I m getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I ll go for a walk. Larry ... honestly, ... stench to it, ... please
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Howard,

                      I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking
                      myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk.

                      Larry

                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
                      > Hi again, Larry -
                      >
                      > I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite
                      honestly,
                      > not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a
                      stench to it,
                      > being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So,
                      please take
                      > what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the
                      grain of salt
                      > and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more!
                      >
                      > With metta,
                      > Howard
                      >
                      > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn,
                      a bubble
                      > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering
                      lamp, a
                      > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond
                      Sutra)
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • upasaka@aol.com
                      Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 2:18:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@webtv.net ... ====================== Yes, a good walk sounds just wonderful! ;-)
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi, Larry -

                        In a message dated 2/1/04 2:18:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@...
                        writes:

                        > Hi Howard,
                        >
                        > I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking
                        > myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk.
                        >
                        > Larry
                        >
                        ======================
                        Yes, a good walk sounds just wonderful! ;-)

                        With metta,
                        Howard

                        /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                        in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                        phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Michael Beisert
                        Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello Larry,

                          I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from
                          a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub
                          elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or process that
                          explains another event, state or process, without any kind of metaphysical
                          occult connection between both.

                          Metta
                          Michael


                          >From: "Larry" <LBIDD@...>
                          >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                          >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                          >Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas
                          >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:00:53 -0000
                          >
                          >Hi Michael,
                          >
                          >This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem
                          >with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that
                          >is all there is?
                          >
                          >Larry
                          >
                          >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert"
                          ><mbeisert@h...> wrote:
                          > > Hello Larry.
                          > >
                          > > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms
                          >of
                          > > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena
                          >being the
                          > > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also
                          >subject
                          > > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that
                          >the
                          > > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I
                          >would call
                          > > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something
                          > > intrinsic.
                          > >
                          > > Metta
                          > > Michael
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/
                          >
                          >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > dhammastudygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >

                          _________________________________________________________________
                          High-speed users�be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
                          Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
                        • LBIDD@webtv.net
                          Hi Michael, Let s let this one percolate for a while. Larry ... M: Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 1, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Michael,

                            Let's let this one percolate for a while.

                            Larry
                            ------------------------
                            M: Hello Larry,
                            I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises
                            from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the
                            sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or
                            process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind
                            of metaphysical occult connection between both.
                            Metta
                            Michael
                          • icarofranca
                            Dear Larry: I m getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I ll go for a walk. ... Don t worry, Larry...thinking about it is more
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 2, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Larry:

                              I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking
                              myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk.

                              -------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Don't worry, Larry...thinking about it is more easy than seems..:-))

                              Tcharararan Tcha-ra-raaan....


                              Mettaya, Ícaro
                            • Michael Beisert
                              Hello Larry, Agreed. Why not let percolate during a walk? I got tthe impression you also appreciate a walk :) Metta Michael ...
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 2, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Larry,

                                Agreed. Why not let percolate during a walk? I got tthe impression you also
                                appreciate a walk :)

                                Metta
                                Michael


                                >From: LBIDD@...
                                >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas
                                >Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:56:50 -0700 (MST)
                                >
                                >Hi Michael,
                                >
                                >Let's let this one percolate for a while.
                                >
                                >Larry
                                >------------------------
                                >M: Hello Larry,
                                >I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises
                                >from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the
                                >sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or
                                >process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind
                                >of metaphysical occult connection between both.
                                >Metta
                                >Michael
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/
                                >
                                >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > dhammastudygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >

                                _________________________________________________________________
                                Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
                                http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
                              • Kenneth Ong
                                Hi Michael As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha should also be
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 2, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Michael

                                  As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana
                                  going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha
                                  should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes
                                  sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his
                                  knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is
                                  not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss
                                  thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to
                                  explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc.

                                  So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can
                                  provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just
                                  requesting for logical argument.


                                  best wishes
                                  Ken O

                                  >
                                  > Michael:
                                  > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas
                                  > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of
                                  that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a
                                  khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of
                                  conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'.

                                  ________________________________________________________________________
                                  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
                                  your friends today! Download Messenger Now
                                  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
                                • Michael Beisert
                                  Hello KenO, Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, How do
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 3, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello KenO,

                                    Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then,
                                    picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do
                                    you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in
                                    my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?"
                                    "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those
                                    overhead in the forest are far more numerous."
                                    "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
                                    knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
                                    taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with
                                    the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead
                                    to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
                                    knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught
                                    them.
                                    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-031.html

                                    "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and
                                    re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation,
                                    expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of
                                    discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the
                                    manifesting (discernibility) of this world -- i.e., name-and-form together
                                    with consciousness.
                                    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn15.html

                                    In the first sutta quoted the Buddha confirms that his kwoledge goes far
                                    beyond what he has taught, and in the second sutta the Buddha is saying that
                                    namarupa and consciousness is how far our discernment can extend, and
                                    therefore that is enough for liberation. Combining those two suttas with
                                    some additional thinking about conditionality should not be hard to figure
                                    out that dhammas are not paramatha from an ontological sense but from a
                                    purely empirical point of view.

                                    Metta
                                    Michael



                                    >From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@...>
                                    >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                    >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                    >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas
                                    >Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:46:01 +0000 (GMT)
                                    >
                                    >Hi Michael
                                    >
                                    >As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana
                                    >going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha
                                    >should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes
                                    >sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his
                                    >knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is
                                    >not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss
                                    >thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to
                                    >explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc.
                                    >
                                    >So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can
                                    >provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just
                                    >requesting for logical argument.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >best wishes
                                    >Ken O
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > > Michael:
                                    > > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas
                                    > > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of
                                    >that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a
                                    >khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of
                                    >conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'.
                                    >
                                    >________________________________________________________________________
                                    >Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
                                    >your friends today! Download Messenger Now
                                    >http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/
                                    >
                                    >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > dhammastudygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    >
                                    >

                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
                                    http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1
                                  • Kenneth Ong
                                    Hi Michael Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on Buddhism. The basic
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 3, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Michael

                                      Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should
                                      always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on
                                      Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent
                                      origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism,
                                      even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the
                                      same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub khandhas
                                      - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be stuck
                                      on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to
                                      remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for
                                      liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another always
                                      refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there
                                      is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about
                                      liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not taught.
                                      It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to
                                      salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep
                                      impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation.


                                      Ken O





                                      ___________________________________________________________
                                      BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
                                    • yu_zhonghao
                                      Hi Ken O, A question: Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? Metta, Victor
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 3, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Ken O,

                                        A question:

                                        Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that
                                        the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)?

                                        Metta,
                                        Victor

                                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong
                                        <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
                                        > Hi Michael
                                        >
                                        > Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should
                                        > always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on
                                        > Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent
                                        > origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism,
                                        > even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the
                                        > same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub
                                        khandhas
                                        > - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be
                                        stuck
                                        > on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to
                                        > remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for
                                        > liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another
                                        always
                                        > refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there
                                        > is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about
                                        > liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not
                                        taught.
                                        > It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to
                                        > salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep
                                        > impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Ken O
                                      • Kenneth Ong
                                        Hi Victor I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the little funny group who
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 3, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Victor

                                          I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar
                                          to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny
                                          group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message.
                                          Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and
                                          back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago
                                          when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words again
                                          and again - it strikes a chord.

                                          Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking
                                          different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further bc
                                          you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that.
                                          You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again
                                          just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further
                                          our discussion.



                                          Ken O


                                          --- yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@...> wrote: > Hi Ken O,
                                          >
                                          > A question:
                                          >
                                          > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that
                                          >
                                          > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)?
                                          >
                                          > Metta,
                                          > Victor
                                          >





                                          ___________________________________________________________
                                          BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
                                        • buddhatrue
                                          Hi Ken O, Ken: You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again just bc I mention his name ;-)]. James: Huh? What? Did you mention my name?
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 4, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Ken O,

                                            Ken: You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in
                                            again just bc I mention his name ;-)].

                                            James: Huh? What? Did you mention my name? ;-))

                                            Metta, James
                                          • yu_zhonghao
                                            Hi Ken, I am not sure what it means by Right Understanding. Does it mean Right View (samma-ditthi)? Please don t get intimidating with my questioning.
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 4, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi Ken,

                                              I am not sure what it means by Right Understanding. Does it mean
                                              Right View (samma-ditthi)?

                                              Please don't get intimidating with my questioning. Sometimes I ask
                                              question to seek clarification on what others are talking about.

                                              Metta,
                                              Victor

                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong
                                              <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
                                              > Hi Victor
                                              >
                                              > I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar
                                              > to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny
                                              > group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message.
                                              > Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and
                                              > back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago
                                              > when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words
                                              again
                                              > and again - it strikes a chord.
                                              >
                                              > Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking
                                              > different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further
                                              bc
                                              > you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that.
                                              > You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again
                                              > just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further
                                              > our discussion.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Ken O
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> wrote: > Hi Ken O,
                                              > >
                                              > > A question:
                                              > >
                                              > > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle
                                              that
                                              > >
                                              > > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)?
                                              > >
                                              > > Metta,
                                              > > Victor
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.