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

[dsg] Re: Survey Quote

Expand Messages
  • Scott
    Dear TG, The Eedjit, back for more ;-), regarding: TG: I don t think there is any place in the Suttas that will say Ruupa is the reality that does not
    Message 1 of 156 , Nov 1, 2008
      Dear TG,

      The Eedjit, back for more ;-), regarding:

      TG: "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say
      'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'"

      Scott: To start, while beginning a search through the suttas for
      ruupa, I'd be interested in how the view you hold comments in relation
      to an Abhidhamma source, Dhammasa"nga.ni (pp. 155-156):

      "All form is that which is...void of mental objects (anaaramma.na.m),
      not a mental property (acetasika.m), disconnected with thought..."


    • upasaka@aol.com
      Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/11/2008 8:49:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@netvigator.com writes: Hi Howard ... but to a ... try to choose ... I
      Message 156 of 156 , Nov 11, 2008
        Hi, Jon -

        In a message dated 11/11/2008 8:49:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        jonabbott@... writes:

        Hi Howard

        > Howard:
        > It isn't a corollary, Jon, though I believe it also is true,
        but to a
        > lesser extent. (That's why I said that it's MORE the opposite. I
        try to choose
        > my words carefully, though I often fail in that.)

        I think you do a fine job of choosing words, Howard, and I do
        appreciate the care with which you write.

        > I don't recall coming across anything like this in the teachings
        > -------------------------------------------------
        > Howard:
        > Even if that is so, that does NOT imply that it is false.
        There also are
        > no remarks in the "texts" about Jonathan Abbott posting on DSG
        circa 2008.

        There's an important difference between the 2 statements, though.
        One statement (the suggested connection between speech and wrong
        view) concerns the development of the path, while the other (the fact
        of Jon's posting to the list) doesn't. I've always taken it as given
        that when it comes to the development of the path the teachings are
        exhaustive. Do you see it otherwise?
        Exhaustive? Perhaps not. But all that is required - absolutely!

        > (there's that bumper sticker phrase again ;-))
        > -------------------------------------------------
        > Howard:
        > Yes, carrying as message that you seem to think is an answer
        to every
        > idea that you don't care for.

        Not at all. The message is simply, if it can't be found in some
        guise in the teachings, does it have relevance to the development of
        the path? And if it's suggested that it does, then on what basis do
        we evaluate the truth or otherwise of the statement/view?

        > P. S. I will say this, Jon: In MN 19, the Buddha taught "Whatever a
        > keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the
        inclination of
        > his awareness." Now, thinking is largely internal speech, and
        speech is
        > externalized thinking. They are inseparable.

        Well yes indeed, speech is externalised thinking. So doesn't that
        mean that it's the thinking that's the problem, rather than the
        speech? If the thinking is straightened out, the speech will follow
        For me, they are clearly mutually conditioning. In fact, to a large
        extent, thinking IS inetrnalized speech.

        With metta,

        /A change in anything is a change in everything/

        **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
        Holiday needs. Search Now.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.