--- Dear Jou,
In Pali@..., "Jou Smith" <josmith.1@...> wrote:

> ----- > >
> > > I missed your name this time. No indications in your email.
> > __________
> > I signed my name, "Robert" in the Mail.
> I looked twice and didn't see it, oh well, maybe my eyesight is

failing.
______________

Here is part of the message again: ""Could you give some details
of where you think he might be wrong.
Robert"""endquote

> > ________
> > >
> > >JOU: But you do not want to do it?! Instead you want to busy

yourself

> > with the
> > > other way.
> > How did you come to your view of the Dhamma? Was it by following

the

> > method
> > > of interpretation the Buddha taught? <Snip>
>
> It seems you wish to ignore this question/these questions. If so, I

find

> that does not work towards developing understanding thru

communication, but

> the opposite.

___________
I guess how I came to my view of Dhamma is a complex process that I
don't fully understand. The accumulation (ayuhana) of wisdom or
ignorance is an ongoing process happening even right now. What I can
definitely say is that I am grateful to the monks of old who
carefully presrved the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. These were
all last recited in Burma in the late 1950's by monks. And whilst
small errors in readings have oocured I believe that careful and
broad study of the teachings shows us that the commentaries and the
Tipitaka are in agreement. Sometimes the words in a sutta are terse
and so profound- the extra details in the commentaries clarify.

>
> > ____________

(called "theravaada") also had

> wisdom (M 26 : M i 164, also M 36 ; M 85 ; M 100). This other text

(M 11 : M

> i 66) indicates it is more specifically the teaching on clinging to

a

> doctrine of soul that is only found in the Awakened One's teaching:
> "Though certain wanderers and priests claim to propound the full
> understanding of all kinds of clinging. they describe the full

understanding

> of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging

to rules

> and observances without describing the full understanding of

clinging to a

> doctrine of soul. They therefore do not understand one instance."
> This agrees with texts indicating that others outside his teaching

had

> developed and do develop the first two of the three super-

knowledges (M 136

> : M iii 210-4), but because they had not developed Right View they

would

> have taken (interpreted) their experience wrongly so they would

have been

> "wrong insight". This goes to show that there may be siila,

samaadhi and

> wisdom in others' teachings, but not the degree of wisdom as found

in the

> Buddha's teaching.

________________

Thanks for quoting this sutta - which I like very much. I see your
point.


Robert: Vi~~n~~naa.na and Citta are not synonyms

>
> JOU: So you say, but that does not fit with the comparative study

method

> mentioned before.

_____________
Just to be clear - are you saying that Vi~~n~~naa.na and Citta are not
synonyms?
Robert