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

Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts

Expand Messages
  • TGrand458@aol.com
    Hi Scott In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:54:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@shaw.ca writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: What gives below...isn TG: What
    Message 1 of 215 , Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Scott


      In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:54:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
      scduncan@... writes:

      Dear TG,

      Regarding:

      TG: "What gives below...isn'TG: "What gives below...isn'<WBR>t this wha
      ...Buddha: '...with consciousness (and the other aggregates) an
      arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that
      which stands is discerned...which stands is discerned...<WBR>Now be hon
      be trumpeting that I was presenting 'permanence view' right?"

      Scott: Yes, you likely would be presenting 'permanence view.'

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



      So what you are saying is that you just repudiate the Suttas period? I
      guess from your perspective, the Buddha was a very sub-standard teacher as his
      teaching, apparently according to you, taught permanence view ... and it took
      the Abhidhamma and commentaries to straighten things out. Alright!



      I have to give you credit for being consistent in that when I reiterate the
      Suttas and you call it "permanence view," that you accuse the Suttas of the
      same when they say the same. Its amazing, but admirable in its consistency.


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




      The
      view doesn't accept the momentary arising and falling away of
      conditioned dhammas, nor does it accept that dhammas have
      characteristics. And no, this is not 'permanence view.' It is in
      reference to the moment, as you know and simply have chosen to reject.

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


      TG: Ah yes, the Commentaries to the rescue!!! With their special views
      unfound in the Suttas.


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




      TG: "How can something alter through time and still stand as the 'same
      thing'...that'thing'...that'<WBR>s got to be

      Scott: This is clarified by the Abhidhamma

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


      TG: Good thing. That Buddha was such a "klutz" in his dissemination of the
      teaching, that nobody could have understood that what he really meant was
      something totally different than he was saying. LOL


      And while we're at it, let's just bypass saying these are our
      interpretations of what the Buddha meant, and just give him direct credit for a whole bunch
      of things he never said. THAT'S keeping it real!


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


      to be in reference to the
      moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a
      conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given dhamma
      comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it is
      here, for these sub-moments.

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


      TG: Comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. Brings a tear to my eye. What
      an amazing grasp of conditionality and causal principles!!!


      Do you have a new strategy maybe? Hurling softballs in hopes that I'll
      spill the beans on something else? ;-)


      TG OUT






      Sincerely,

      Scott.

      **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
      AOL.com.
      (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • upasaka@aol.com
      Hi, Sarah - ??? Replying from the library. (Still probably a week or two before the monitor is repaired or replaced.) My only comment on this post of yours is
      Message 215 of 215 , Feb 28, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Sarah -



        ??? Replying from the library. (Still probably a week or two before the monitor is repaired or replaced.) My only comment on this post of yours is "Cool! We agree!!! ;-))"



        With metta,

        Howard


        -----Original Message-----
        From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...>
        To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 6:08 am
        Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts




        Hi Howard,

        Firstly, sorry to hear about your computer monitor. I hope you're able to get it
        fixed/replaced soon. No hurry for any replies...


        --- On Wed, 25/2/09, upasaka@... <upasaka@...> wrote:
        >> Howard:
        > And consciousness (recollection, really) of the thinking.
        Ideas and
        > stretches of thought (or thinking) are actually one and the same.
        When we think
        > that in addition to the thinking, there are other things
        called "ideas," we
        > are, I believe, making a mistake.
        > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -
        >S: I can see why I didn't rush to respond - Just as seeing is
        different from visible object, hearing is different from sound,
        bodily experiencing is different from hardness, so thinking is
        different from the ideas thought about.
        ...

        ============ ========= =======
        H:>I don't believe in actual things that are ideas/thoughts. I only believe in
        the process of thinking.
        ....
        S: But weren't you saying in the comments above that thinking and ideas are one
        and the same?

        I certainly agree with this comment that there is just a "process of thinking",
        no "actual things that are ideas/thoughts." I think it's very important to
        distinguish between the thinking itself, which can be known and the ideas which
        are not "actual things".
        ....
        H:>And for your own Abhidhammic consideration: What
        sort of dhamma would an idea/thought be? It is not rupa and it is not nama
        (including nibbana), and, IMO, that makes it nothing at all.
        ...
        S: Exactly.....it's a concept, not a nama or rupa, not an actual reality.

        Metta,

        Sarah
        =========


        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links


        red@yahoogroups.com




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