--- --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "frank" <frank@4...> wrote: >

Attempts to > divide reality into further detail (through
intellectual study and analysis) > and isolate atomic dhammic
elements IMHO does not lend clarity to seeing > dukkha, and if views
develop and are grasped wrongly lead to incorrect > understanding of
reality that are harmful to oneself. For example, in > asserting
that there is this independent rupa conjoined with an independent
citta that arises/ceases at death and then a different independent
citta > that arises instantaneously in a new rupa for rebirth is not
something that > I would expect the Buddha to teach, considering the
two sutta excerpts from > above.
====================-
Dear Frank,
Well it seems clear to me that the Buddha indeed taught that there
is instantanaeous rebirth - no intemediate being. An idea (of
intermediate beings) has to be tied up with an idea of a lasting
being - i.e self view and view of permanence.
I disagree with your comments about knowing details of the elements
being harmful:
Dispeller of delusion, Pali text society, *commentary to the
Vibhanga).

"the characetristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping
in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements
(nanadhatuvinbbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness....
But when resolving of the compact (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by
resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of anatta
appears in accordance with its true essential nature"
Sammohavinodani59-60)
_____________________________________________


Frank: dhammic theories seen with one's own meditative
realizations easily trumps > speculative views backed by
commentarial literature. Now if someone on the > list were to step
up and say, "Well, when I emerge from the jhanas and > observe a
dying consciousness, what I observe contradicts what a very large >
number of jhana meditators have personally witnessed regarding >
antaraabhava", then we might have an interesting discussion. > >


Frank (last week): The crux of the matter is that when the stakes
are high, are you going to completely trust a 2500 year old sacred
text if it contradicts your meditative experience? ..I find it
refreshing for someone with meditative attainment to add their
perspective to this discussion on instant rebirth, rather than just
have a discussion based on authority of interpreting sacred text.
Why not just sit back and appreciate these alternative perspectives
instead of behaving like an insecure faith follower
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/7757


Frank (Old post)In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan <fcckuan@...>
wrote:

> I just finished reading an awesome biography of ajahn
> mun. I'd like to point out that Ajahns mun, Chah, and
> many thai monks in the 20th century attained ariya
> status (arahant, nonreturner, once returner, stream
> enterer), 2000+ years after the buddha's death,
> supposedly in this dhamma ending age.
>
> They seem to have done it without the aid of
> commentaries, abidhamma, or even a very comprehensive
> study of the pali canon!I place a high

premium on outstanding cultivators who live a saintly
way in the modern era, not just talk a great game or
have written a sophisticated and compelling
commentary, book, etc.

________
In these posts you value the word of modern writers on Buddhism who
claim to have special attaintments, but you distrust the Theravada
texts.
Why do you think a modern Buddhist should be more believed than the
ancients whose words have being recorded, recited and esteemed by
monks for millenia?
Even if I put aside my large doubts about the jhana attainments of
these contemporary buddhists someone who attained genuine jhana can
still be very deluded. In the Brahmajala sutta the Buddha gives the
case of someone skilled in Jhana who believes they are GOd etc. Will
you believe him if such a person wrote it to be so on this list
(provided he said he had attained jhana)?
Robertk