----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...>
To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:10 AM
Subject: [Pali] Buddhist economics


>
> Mike wrote:
>
>>> "There are nama and rupa and we cannot escape them"
>> 1. It is for the sake of pointing out by way of analysis of the
>> response how it was a statement made without thought or was a
>> pernicious belief held onto by her.
>
> I think this is all rather over the top and still not a little
> offensive or
> hurtful. To me, it is quite clear from the context that Nina was
> not saying
> that one cannot escape from nama-rupa in the Buddhist sense, but
> they are an
> ever-present problem that we are burdened with, so as far as I can
> see she
> was merely saying that the demands of life are sometimes rather
> presssing.

If I may respectfully interject... I would like to affirm Ms. Van
Gorkom's statement... we cannot escape rupa and nama, as the
components of "we" are that very rupa and nama. This is why the Lord
Buddha taught "sabbe dhammaa anattaa". If nibbaana were self, then
surely we could escape rupa and nama. But since nibbaana is not self,
there is therefore no escape for "we". "We" has to run around chasing
after "we" like a dog its tail, and no escape is possible for a dog
from its tail...

Through letting go of "we", along with "they", "us", "them", "ours",
"theirs" (aha.m kara, mama.m kara) there is no more arising of rupa
and nama, and so there is nothing more to escape from and nothing that
should escape! But this requires freedom from both ditthi and manas,
and is not something achieved without striving...

ime me dve maasakaa honti (these are my two cents).

Shalom,

Yuttadhammo

> You should always remember that not everybody on this list is a
> native
> speaker of English -- though she has an excellent command of the
> language,
> English is not Nina's mother tongue. Allowances should be made for
> the
> occasional linguistic infelicity which would not have been written
> by
> masters of our language such as yourself.
>
>> what does and what does not constitute the best way for
>> an individual to hear that he is dead wrong about something
> You, of course, are impeccably qualified to judge such things ?
>
> Best wishes,
> Stephen Hodge