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

Re: Reifying, .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives

Expand Messages
  • indriyabala
    Hi good friend Howard, - ... Howard: Sure, my friend! :-) ... Tep: You were kind. A discussion is good or not depends on who discuss what with whom.
    Message 1 of 52 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi good friend Howard, -

      >Tep:
      > Have we had a good discussion, in your opinion?

      --------------------------------------------
      Howard:
      Sure, my friend! :-)
      -----------------------------------------

      Tep: You were kind.
      A discussion is good or not depends on who discuss what with whom.
      Personally, I am willing to label a discussion as "good" if I learn
      something useful from it. So far, I have not had a clear idea yet
      about your perspective on the D.O. with respect to namarupa and
      vi~n~nana. Maybe I am too dense. {:>)

      .......................
      .......................

      > >Howard:
      > > In the context of that sutta, I understand namarupa to
      > constitute the object and vi~n~nana the subject in a dualistic,
      > > subject-object mode of defiled) experiencing. That is the way I
      > >understand D.O.

      Tep: And I answered with a quote from SN 12.67:

      > Tep: I think you are reading the sutta through your pink eyeglasses !
      > The sutta message is simple and colorless. I understand it to say that
      > namarupa and citta co-arise dependently. The great Arahant Sariputta
      > explains the dependent co-arising nature of Name&form and
      > consciousness as follows:
      >
      > "It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
      > another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition
      > comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition >
      comes name-&-form. ...
      > "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other
      > would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would
      > fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the
      > cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness
      >comes the cessation of name-&-form. [SN 12.67 Nalakalapiyo Sutta;
      >Sheaves of Reeds]

      Tep: And you said you did not wear pink eyeglasses.

      Howard:
      So? That doesn't contradict my perspective in the slightest!
      --------------------------------------------

      Tep: Why? Do you mind elaborating more?


      Respectfully,


      Tep

      =========
      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
      >
      > Hi, Tep -
      >
      > In a message dated 5/30/06 9:23:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      > indriyabala@... writes:
      >
      > > Hi Howard (and Daniel, Ken O, Sarah, Han), -
      > >
      (snipped)
      > >
      > >
      > > >>T:
      > > >>I am sure only ruupa and naama and consciousness are mutually
      > > >>dependent. How do I know that? Because the Buddha said it : "It
      is as
      > > >>if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
      another. In
      > > >>the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes
      > > >>consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
      > > >>name-&-form."
      > > >>[SN 12.67 Nalakalapiyo; Sutta Sheaves of Reeds]
      > > >
      > > >------------------------------------------
      > > >Howard:
      > > > In the context of that sutta, I understand namarupa to
      > > constitute the
      > > >object and vi~n~nana the subject in a dualistic, subject-object
      mode of
      > > >(defiled) experiencing. That is the way I understand D.O. (I believe
      > > you've read my
      > > >perspective on that before.)
      > > >----------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Tep: I think you are reading the sutta through your pink eyeglasses !
      > > The sutta message is simple and colorless. I understand it to say that
      > > namarupa and citta co-arise dependently. The great Arahant Sariputta
      > > explains the dependent co-arising nature of Name&form and
      > > consciousness as follows:
      > >
      > > "It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
      > > another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition
      > > comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
      > > name-&-form. ...
      > > "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other
      > > would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would
      > > fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the
      > > cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes
      > > the cessation of name-&-form. [SN 12.67 Nalakalapiyo Sutta; Sheaves of
      > > Reeds]
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------
      > Howard:
      > So? That doesn't contradict my perspective in the slightest!
      > --------------------------------------------
    • sarah abbott
      Hi Ken O (& Tep), You were both having a very good discussion on citta as chief. I forget if the issues were resolved? ... .... S: I thought this was excellent
      Message 52 of 52 , Jun 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ken O (& Tep),

        You were both having a very good discussion on citta as chief. I forget if
        the issues were resolved?

        --- Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:
        > k: I think the distinction of the function should be clear. Citta
        > is chief does not mean citta is the mafia godfather where any member
        > take instruction from. Chief in the sense that without it, there is
        > no arisen of cetasikas, chief in terms of being the one that cognise
        > an object. But this guy (citta) is a good chap, very obedient, it is
        > neither good or bad. In fact it is always bully by the cetasikas.
        > They are the one who tell this poor chap (citta) that they are going
        > to be bad or good One example is citta like water will be red or
        > blue depend on what kind of colour powder that mixed with the water.
        > We only say water is chief because without it there would not be
        > colour water. However it is the colour powder that determines the
        > type of colour and not the water.
        ....
        S: I thought this was excellent and very colourful, Ken O.

        It reminded me of why it is said that citta is 'pandara' or clear - even
        akusala cittas.

        Metta,

        Sarah
        ========
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.