Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta
- Dear Larry,
Before trying to separate anything; what is present?
These dhammas can be discerned (so the texts say)- but not by
someone - by panna. Panna arises and passes away just as quickly as
seeing - and so panna can come in and discern what is nama and what
Thinking about dhammas cannot remove doubt - but thinking (the
process) can be known as it occurs.
In email@example.com, "Larry" <LBIDD@w...> wrote:
> Hi Robert,Color
> I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me.
> isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formedas
> into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a
> committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily
> objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless.moments
> Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many
> (perhaps millions) all bunched together without adiscernible "edge"
> of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formationexploding
> into my living room.without
> I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept
> Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically
> separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself,
> object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas?wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@y...>
> > --- In email@example.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:become
> > Dear Larry,
> > It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is
> > present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing-
> > nama.
> > Then there is thinking about what was seen.
> > It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts
> > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have thiswasn't
> > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry.
> > Robertk
> > Hi Robert,
> > >
> > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I
> > toois
> > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in
> > theParticularly
> > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis.
> > it
> > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time
> > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong aboutlater
> > > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground".
> > >
> > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in
> > Vism., I
> > > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say
> > about it.
> > > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by
> > > commentators.
> > >
> > > Larry
- Rob M
--- robmoult <rob.moult@...> wrote: > Hi Michael,
> You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimateWould you mind expanding on this. Certainly, as I understand it, the
> realities is not explicity included as part of the original
> Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at
> later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly
> discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition,
> it is not the word of the Buddha.
Abhidhamma texts deal extensively with 'dhammas/realities' (citta,
cetasika, rupa and nibbana), in contradistinction to concepts. What
is it about the concept of 'ultimate realities' that is not found in
the main works of the Abhidhamma pitaka, as you see it?
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk