Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive
- Hi TG
> There are certainly many references to dhammas, but there are alsoWell I was only responding on the narrow point of your assertion that
> references to 'dyads' and it is these rather than the dhammas to which
> the description "moving and tottering" is applied.
> TG: OK, I hate to be THIS blunt, here's where I need the (moral) help
> because I feel like I've enter BIZZARRO LAND. The "dyad" is the sense base and
> the sense object...it is these that are moving and tottering. To assert that
> it is not the sense base and sense object that are being referred to, and to
> assert that there is something else called a "dyad" that is being referred to,
> as opposed to the constituents of said "dyad," has reached a new dimension
> in ridiculous rhetorical evasiveness ... apparently in an attempt to defend
> some commentarial doctrinal dogma. If one sets up these road blocks, it not
> only hurt themselves and their own insight, it hurts anyone else that might
> buy into it.
the sutta passage you quoted mentions only dhammas and not conventional
Clearly a dyad, regardless of how many dhammas are involved, is not a
dhamma. And equally clearly, to me at least, the attributes of "moving
and tottering" apply to those dyads (and are not included in the
descriptions given in the other contexts where only dhammas are mentioned).
Now as to the significance of al this, well I didn't attempt to go into
> I am not sure what the "things" being referred to in the second sentenceI'm not saying I don't have attachment to views, but regardless of what
> are - dhammas or dyads (or something else).]
> TG: LOL Hellooooooooo It is exactly what is being described that is
> being referred to. I.E., Elements!!! Aggregates!!!! I have to give you
> credit though....at least you didn't just dodge this content !!!!!!!!!!!!
> It seems that attachment to other views makes it difficult to see the most
> plain and straightforward of teachings by the Buddha... teachings dealing
> directly with elements and aggregates. And yes, they don't jibe with some of the
> Abhidhamma commentarial stuff that gets adhered to.
my own views may be I am only stating what I understand to be the
orthodox commentarial interpretation of the suttas. I have confidence
that the commentarial view is worth studying and coming to understand in
more detail. So far I have not found any inconsistency with the suttas
- Dear Sarah,
Thanks for the reply:
S: "...Did you wish to add any further point or summary? I don't
really have any comment to add to what I wrote before about the
development of panna in animals and so on."
Scott: No, I'm good for now on this material as well, Sarah. Not much
of substance in recent days to comment on, but I'm still reading and
something will come up sooner or later...