Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm...
- In a message dated 3/1/2008 4:12:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
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
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
existential nature of dhammas was, IMO, one of the most remarkable and
admirable contributions to the welfare of the world ever made!
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.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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! :-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
> Dear Ken
> You seem to have completely missed what I was objecting to. If I
> time to find my initial post I could show you. What I think you
> 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
> 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
> dozens of times.