DC:

> (3) "he is done for"--What is meant here is that because of the evil-deed,
> he didn't become a sotapanna. According to dhamma, killing one's father is
> one of the five heinous crimes. Such a person need to travel long in
> sa.msaara before he can progress in the path. What the Buddha was trying
> to explain to the monks was that though the king understood the Dhamma
> intellectually, because his mind (citta, mano, vi~n~naa.na) was not pure
> enough to achieve the sotapanna status. This is a very good example where
> intellectual understanding of Dhamma is of very little use.
>

AC:
I notice DC has some kind of fixation against "intellectual understanding"
of the Dharma.
I'm not sure if I'm worthy of any reply, but questions many people may like
to ask:

(1) What do you mean by "intellectual understanding?"
(2) Do you mean all the intellectual scholarly research are useless and in
no way helpful
in sorting out some textual difficulties of Buddhist Studies?
(3) Are you saying that you are beyond "intellectual understanding"? That
you have attained
some deeper level of Dharma?
(4) How do you explain the three kinds of wisdom (cintamaya panna, sutamaya
panna,
bhavanamaya panna) of D 3:219? Is sutamaya panna at least in part
intellectual? Notice that'
sutamaya panna is listed second, AFTER cintamaya panna, why is this so?
(5) Are you saying intellectual understanding has in no way helped up as a
step into a deeper
understanding of the Dharma?
(6) Are you saying that "right understanding" of the Dharma (awakening?)
arises straight from
ignorance and stupidity to wisdom (sudden awakening of sort)?
(7) Are you saying that books on Buddhism are useless?
(8) Please tell us how we can help the intellectual Buddhist instead of
merely condemning them.

Despite the facelessness and sometimes heartlessness (diplomacy?) of the
internet, I think
some human communication and friendly honesty are in order. How we present
ourselves on
the internet is how the "world" will see us.

If our communication is narrow-minded, unaccomodating, or "I'm right,
everyone else is wrong",
then we can't help wondering what sort of person we are offline: how we are
getting along with
living people. Do we talk bitterly like this to to them too? Some may think
the Dharma has
nothing to do with self-changing, but I think it has.

The internet is a great for someone with personality difficulties and silly
hangups like myself
to boost my ego, crying for attention; but it is also a place where I can
tell people how great
they are in working together to learn the Dharma (oh yes, and Pali, too).

We are co-seekers of the Dharma, are we not? No bitterness, please, we are
Buddhists.

Let us spend the evening of our lives smiling at the follies of the new
generation and those who
are different, knowing that like us, they too will grow and indeed maybe be
better than we were.

No matter how old we are (I'm nearly 60), or how "non-intellectual" we are,
it is never too late
to change.

When we see the foolishness and intellectualism of others may we see
ourselves in them; for
they are out own mental perceptions and projections.

From our reactions from reading such nonsense as this message, may we see
our false self,
and thereby journey towards our true self, and on to realize there is no
self.

A wise monk I know once said: "There are only two kinds of Buddhism: MY
Buddhism and
YOUR Buddhism."

It's all right to be intellectual (because that's how we all begin), as long
as we do not stop
seeking.

Bahusaccan ca sippan ca -- etam mangalam uttamam.
May we always have the desire to learn (sikkhaakaamo homi).

With metta,

Piya Tan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]