Re: [dsg] breath
- Hi Nina,
As far as I can tell, for me, the in-breath is produced by desire. The
out breath seems to be produced sometimes by a form of dosa that pushes
and sometimes by a form of alobha that releases tension. What kind of
consciousnesses produce an arahant's breaths? It is hard to imagine
breathing in without desire.
- Dear Sarah, Andrew, Philip
Thank you. It is the word impinging, and what one means by it, really a
minor point. I should not have asked it, it is a hairsplitting matter. The
main thing is: what characteristic appears now. In the last instance we have
to verify ourselves the truth of realities. And we should not cling to words
or terms. I get the point here. But when I wrote, a teacher said, I did not
refer to a Commentator, only to one of the teachers at the Foundation. I did
not read about this subject in commentaries. I do not know whether there is
anything in the Commentary about this.
I want to add a word about this subject lest people have misunderstandings
about the way commentators work. As said before, I am always impressed by
the way Buddhaghosa works, mentioning when there were opinions of other
teachers. Moreover, different opinions were mostly concerning minor points.
The Commentators are not the omniscient Buddha, but they most faithfully
assisted in transmitting his teachings and I am infinitely grateful to the
reciters of the Tipitaka and commentaries. Thanks to them we can learn so
much today. Buddhaghosa did not invent new things, he edited the old
commentaries as we often discussed. I am thinking of Andrew's correspondance
with Philip about oral tradition. Here are a few points to consider. Think
of it when people in a large group recite together, there is constant
surveillance here. And when these are superior people, wise and
understanding, it ensures the highest standards. This was the case when at
the Councils hundreds of arahats were reciting the texts, Tipitaka and
commentaries, together! People without defilements have infallible memories.
No doubt about it! They were without perversity of sa~n~naa.
Andrew was wondering about the word pa~n~natti not used in the suttas. But
we have the words conventional truth and absolute truth. Conventional truth
is pa~n~natti. The Abhidhamma explains in detail about these notions. It is
essential to know the difference, otherwise vipassana cannot be developed
correctly. We would take the unreal for the real.
Now, happy Vesakha to you and all here on May 4th! I am also thinking of my
friends in Bogor. I will have a good talk with Lodewijk, like we had last
year on Rahula who had to become like the Earth, the dustrag mentality.
May we all become like dustrags, with all conceit eventually eliminated.
op 30-04-2004 10:15 schreef sarahdhhk op sarahdhhk@...:
> K.Sujin said 'it doesn't matter' whether one, two or three of the
> great elements impinge and there's 'no use in saying it'. She
> said that different texts give different answers because they are
> written by the commentators (i.e without the Buddha's
> omniscience). 'Still, only one characteristic appears'. We know
> that because it's an object of body consciousness (i.e the rupa),
> it must be in a kalapa of at least 8 rupas. 'The very fine detail can
> only be known by the Buddha's omniscience'.