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

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

Expand Messages
  • robmoult
    Hi Michael, ... that exist ... kind of ... Yup! Metta, Rob M :-)
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Michael,

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert"
      <mbeisert@h...> wrote:
      > Hello RobM,
      >
      > RobM:
      > I see a being as a collection of five
      > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate
      > realities depend on other things to arise
      >
      > Michael:
      > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something
      that exist
      > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some
      kind of
      > essence. Is that what you mean?

      Yup!

      Metta,
      Rob M :-)
    • Michael Beisert
      Hello RobM, Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it cannot arise dependently. Metta Michael ...
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello RobM,

        Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it cannot
        arise dependently.

        Metta
        Michael


        >From: "robmoult" <rob.moult@...>
        >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
        >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta
        >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:15:27 -0000
        >
        >Hi Michael,
        >
        >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert"
        ><mbeisert@h...> wrote:
        > > Hello RobM,
        > >
        > > RobM:
        > > I see a being as a collection of five
        > > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate
        > > realities depend on other things to arise
        > >
        > > Michael:
        > > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something
        >that exist
        > > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some
        >kind of
        > > essence. Is that what you mean?
        >
        >Yup!
        >
        >Metta,
        >Rob M :-)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >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 This is what I call writer bias, essence have six difference meanings which I have write to you before. It can also define as The intrinsic or
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Michael

          This is what I call writer bias, essence have six difference meanings
          which I have write to you before. It can also define as The
          intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or
          identify something.

          Do you have more in discussion to support your case other than
          running in circles about essence, existence and intrinsic. I state
          again, you have not yet show in any sutta or commentary text to back
          up your case esp on sabhava and also your so call regression theory
          (sub khandhas).



          best wishes
          Ken O


          --- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@...> wrote: > Hello RobM,
          >
          > Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it
          > cannot
          > arise dependently.
          >
          > Metta
          > Michael
          >
          >

          ________________________________________________________________________
          BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
        • Sarah
          Hi, Howard, I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it: J: Honestly
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Howard,

            I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to
            requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it:

            J:> Honestly though, I am not sure
            > what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me,
            > truth is truth.
            >
            =======================
            H:> Actually, the thing that is literal or non-literal isn't the
            truth, per se, of the sentence involved, but the meaning. When we say "A
            person is coming for dinner," it sounds like we mean that some actual
            thing that we can pin down (a "person") is engaging in a well delineable
            activity (the "coming") that involves some other actual thing we can pin
            down ("dinner"). Taking it that way is to provide a literal understanding
            for a conventional utterance. From the Buddhist perspective, and from my
            perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a
            "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to
            the facts; and if the statement is understood quite literally, then is
            quite false (even when somebody IS coming to dinner ;-). However, the
            statement, makes perfectly good conventional sense, and it is, when
            understood that way, quite possibly true.
            Now, there is a literal meaning that the conventional formulation
            abbreviates - and there are levels and levels of more and more complex
            formulation that more and more closely express the literal meaning, but
            that literal meaning is pragmatically inexpressible in a direct manner,
            requiring a (near-)infinite complexity. Thus, to communicate, we *must*
            use conventional formulation.
            The trouble is that we are in the habit of taking our conventional
            formulations as bearing literal meaning. The Buddha used conventional
            formulations all the time, because he communicated, and they are needed to
            communicate, but he
            directly saw what is literally the case and was not taken in by
            convention.< end quote>

            Metta and good to read your other posts too:-)

            Sarah
            =======


            _______________________________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
          • upasaka@aol.com
            Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/4/04 8:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... ======================== Welcome back! Thank you for letting me know that you like
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Sarah -

              In a message dated 2/4/04 8:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              sarahdhhk@... writes:

              > Hi, Howard,
              >
              > I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to
              > requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it
              ========================
              Welcome back! Thank you for letting me know that you like this. Of
              course, you are free to quote any of my rantings ;-), whether you wish to express
              approval or disapproval.

              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]
            • LBIDD@webtv.net
              Sukin: I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept and *think* that we experience `desire´, but in reality it may be something else
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Sukin:"I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept
                and *think* that we experience `desire´, but in reality it may be
                something else altogether."

                Hi Sukin,

                If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but
                instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further? Your
                dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only
                something you think. Can you find that thought?

                Larry
              • Sukinderpal Singh Narula
                Hi Larry, ... Your ... I wouldn t look further because there *is no* further!! ;-) Was there a dilemma to be solved? Just like any ultimate reality, `thinking
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Larry,

                  > If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but
                  > instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further?
                  Your
                  > dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only
                  > something you think. Can you find that thought?

                  I wouldn't look further because there *is no* further!! ;-) Was
                  there a dilemma to be solved?

                  Just like any ultimate reality, `thinking' also has characteristics
                  which can be known. And here too, through familiarity one can become
                  more and more precise. And I think this is particularly useful,
                  because it is here where the beginning of mental proliferation can
                  be known, which is where most of our other accumulated defilements
                  feed upon.
                  But are you suggesting that one can have insight with concept as
                  object? I don't think so. I think concept or `thought' can only
                  condition more concept and thought. The insight can take place
                  of `thinking' and not of `thought'.
                  Am I on the right track?

                  Metta,
                  Sukin.
                • LBIDD@webtv.net
                  Hi Sukin, All I m saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering or desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don t have such problems,
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Sukin,

                    All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering or
                    desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have such
                    problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or
                    imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then they are
                    no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems" doesn't
                    do the trick. You have to really investigate.

                    Larry
                  • Sukinderpal Singh Narula
                    Hi Larry, ... or ... such ... they are ... doesn t ... I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and suffering. Of course I do have great problem
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Larry,

                      > All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering
                      or
                      > desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have
                      such
                      > problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or
                      > imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then
                      they are
                      > no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems"
                      doesn't
                      > do the trick. You have to really investigate.

                      I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and
                      suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and
                      suffering (as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there
                      have never been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem
                      to imply. If ever the conditions arise and I discover something
                      interesting, I'll let you know. ;-)

                      But perhaps your suggestion to "careful search" and "really
                      investigate" means what it does conventionally. Do you think insight
                      can be reached by such means?

                      Metta,
                      Sukin
                    • LBIDD@webtv.net
                      Sukin: I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and suffering (as I understand it
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 8, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sukin: "I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and
                        suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and suffering
                        (as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there have never
                        been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem to imply. If
                        ever the conditions arise and I discover something interesting, I'll let
                        you know. ;-)"

                        Hi Sukin,

                        What if we say on the level in which we live our ordinary life desire
                        itself is concept. In other words, the desire that we know and have a
                        problem with is itself a concept. Do we need extraordinary powers of
                        concentration and insight in order to realize that a concept is not real
                        and therefore not a problem?

                        Larry
                      • Sukinderpal Singh Narula
                        Hi Larry, ... desire ... have a ... of ... not real ... There is still the fact that there is ignorance of dhammas. Recognizing concepts is one thing, but to
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 11, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Larry,

                          > What if we say on the level in which we live our ordinary life
                          desire
                          > itself is concept. In other words, the desire that we know and
                          have a
                          > problem with is itself a concept. Do we need extraordinary powers
                          of
                          > concentration and insight in order to realize that a concept is
                          not real
                          > and therefore not a problem?

                          There is still the fact that there is 'ignorance' of dhammas.
                          Recognizing concepts is one thing, but to say that it is not a
                          problem because it is not real is not liberating, though perhaps it
                          may placate. Ignorance is still being accumulated on another level.
                          Only direct insight can make one feel trully that there is 'no
                          problem'.

                          Metta,
                          Sukin.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.