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

Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

Expand Messages
  • rjkjp1
    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
    Message 1 of 82 , Feb 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      is rupa.
      Thinking about dhammas cannot remove doubt - but thinking (the
      process) can be known as it occurs.
      RobK

      In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <LBIDD@w...> wrote:
      > Hi Robert,
      >
      > I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me.
      Color
      > isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formed
      > into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a
      > committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily
      as
      > objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless.
      > Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many
      moments
      > (perhaps millions) all bunched together without a
      discernible "edge"
      > of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formation
      exploding
      > into my living room.
      >
      > I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept
      without
      > language.
      >
      > Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically
      > separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself,
      an
      > object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas?
      >
      > Larry
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@y...>
      wrote:
      > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:
      > > 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
      become
      > > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this
      > > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry.
      > > Robertk
      > >
      > > Hi Robert,
      > > >
      > > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I
      wasn't
      > > too
      > > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in
      is
      > > the
      > > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis.
      Particularly
      > as
      > > it
      > > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time
      mental
      > > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about
      > this.
      > > > 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
      later
      > > > commentators.
      > > >
      > > > Larry
    • Jonothan Abbott
      Rob M ... Would you mind expanding on this. Certainly, as I understand it, the Abhidhamma texts deal extensively with dhammas/realities (citta, cetasika,
      Message 82 of 82 , Feb 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob M

        --- robmoult <rob.moult@...> wrote: > Hi Michael,
        >
        ...
        > You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate
        > realities is not explicity included as part of the original
        > Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at
        > a
        > 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.

        Would you mind expanding on this. Certainly, as I understand it, the
        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?

        Jon


        _______________________________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.