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

Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm...

Expand Messages
  • TGrand458@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/1/2008 4:12:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@aol.com writes: Howard: I agree with you, TG, that he says both positions are wrong,
    Message 1 of 64 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/1/2008 4:12:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
      upasaka@... writes:

      Howard:
      I agree with you, TG, that he says both positions are wrong, but I
      disagree with you to the extent that I consider noting the middle-way mode
      of
      existence of dhammas to fall under ontology, as it pertains (exactly) to the
      matter of existence. And the Buddha's observing and reporting this truly
      amazing
      existential nature of dhammas was, IMO, one of the most remarkable and
      admirable contributions to the welfare of the world ever made!



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

      Hi Howard


      I agree with you on Buddhist ontology and I stand corrected. Buddhist
      ontology deals with the process or mechanics of phenomena, that which we know of
      as "conditionality," and therefore allows insight to "see through" the false
      facade of phenomena and know things/phenomena as they really are...as
      conditioned, impermanent, afflicting (when in relationship to consciousness), and
      nonself. As well as empty, coreless, fleeting, transient, and like foam, like
      bursting bubbles, like a mirage, without a core, like a trick, and so on.


      TG



      **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
      (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
      2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kenhowardau
      Hi Robert, I don t think we have any major disagreements. Maybe I was trying to too hard to be clever when I read the sutta as saying concepts don t really
      Message 64 of 64 , Mar 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Robert,

        I don't think we have any major disagreements. Maybe I was trying to
        too hard to be clever when I read the sutta as saying concepts don't
        really exist. (We know they don't, of course, but I am prepared to
        admit the sutta was not addressing that point.)

        As for Karunadasa writings, I am no authority at all. When Howard
        posted an extract and suggested K agrues against the ultimate
        existence of conditioned dhammas I had to admit that it did seem that
        way. But, as I say, I am no expert, and I don't have the inclination
        to study his work in detail. I am pleased to hear you say that he
        does believe in ultimate reality. Good for him! :-)

        Ken H

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Ken
        > You seem to have completely missed what I was objecting to. If I
        had
        > time to find my initial post I could show you. What I think you
        said
        > in a post to Ray was that the sutta when it talked about rupa (of
        > the five khandas) was talking about concepts. I hold that is
        talking
        > about paramattha dhammas (i.e. ULTIMATE REALITIES). I am certainly
        > not in the side of keci who think the khandhas are not ultimate
        > realities- that is opposed to Theravada and is wrong view.
        > You will have to show me a quote where you think Karunadasa is
        > wrong, I've had his wrtings on my website for 8 years and have
        cited
        > dozens of times.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.