From: Nina van Gorkom
Message: 14186
Date: 2009-12-17
> Well, I have checked both files. They are produced by the same-------
> software (XeTeX) using the same set of fonts. I am at a loss why
> one is ok while the other is not. Can you tell me the version of
> the Adobe Reader you are using?
> > Failing to see the connection is perhaps the reason that----------
> laypeople do
> > not know that they can learn a great deal from rules pertaining to
> > conduct in daily life. .... (snipped)
>--------
> P: I agree. Vinaya and Abhidhamma are closer than what people are
> generally aware of. I intend to write a paper on that topic.
>--------
> P: In the meantime, I would like to remark that if you meet the
> Buddha as a teacher in suttas, you can meet him as an administrator
> in Vinaya.
>--------
> > I would like to add from the Pa.tisambidhaamagga, Knowledge not
> > shared by Disciples: Knowledge of others' faculties, and
> knowledge of
> > beings' biases and underlying tendencies (Ch LXVIII and LXIX. ) Only
> > the Buddha with his omniscience knew the dispositions and latent
> > tendencies of beings. Out of compassion he made an exception.
>------
> P: I do agree with you. However, I cannot add your contribution to
> my paper because the prevalent opinion of modern scholars is that
> Pa.tisambhidhaamagga belongs to the "post-canonical" phase (See von
> Hinuber "Handbook of Pali Literature" 59-60).
> P: So I cannot cite Pa.tis to support my argument unless I can-------
> prove that Pa.tis belongs to the so-called phase of "Early
> Buddhism". This is a different sort of game, you know. (Sometimes I
> ask myself why I am playing such an intellectual game. The answer
> is: this is one of the few things that I love to do and also do
> well. And I also hope that my work will somehow contribute towards
> the common good.)