DC Wijeratna

You wrote:

> DC: What you say above is contrary to our experience. If there is no 'Nina', with whom am I carrying on this discussion? I did not respond to 'citta, cetasika, and ruupa'.
> I responded to a 'human being'.
> Nina citta, cetasika and ruupa are just words without a meaning!!!

What Nina said is verified by thousands of meditators' experience when they have developed their insight to a certain extent even though it may appear to contradict the common experience of persons like you and me.

> To carry on a conversation, using a language, we need words and the meaning of words need to agreed (vohaara or sammuti).
> Please give mea definition for the words you used above, which I can understand and then agree (or disagree).

This reminds me of Voltaire, who said, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms". (Sorry! I just can't help it.) Seriously, however, Bhikkhu Bodhi's *A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma* would be a good starter for you to find out about these terms.

> What is your authority for saying: what we take for a person is only: citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that
> arise and then fall away immediately. I would�be grateful to have the Sutta references; the Buddha's own words.

I think you and Nina have very different approaches here.

Your approach seems to be based on the concept of Early Buddhism, the intellectual game of trying to find out what the Buddha really taught among the available scriptures of various schools. The problem is: I have never seen two professors agreeing with each other. Each professor has its own version of Early Buddhism. Therefore it would be endless if you choose to enter such a controversy.

On the other hand, Nina's approach is based on the orthodox Theravadin Buddhism which also counts Abhidhamma as part of the Buddha's teaching plus meditative experience.

In my opinion, this discussion will be more fruitful if you both can recognize the difference and reach a compromise that both can accept.

with metta

Ven. Pandita