Hi Bryan,
"name" as in nama-rupa is the concept :-)
(or the concept creating machinery)
see here:
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-meaning-of-nama-and-rupa/
<
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-meaning-of-nama-and-rupa/>same
but even better and also highly recommended:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm
metta,
Lennart
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:
>
>
> Hi Nina,
>
>
> >A concept is different from a reality, it is sammutti sacca. A word
> >or a body is sammutti sacca, it does not have an unalterable
> >characteristic. When we perceive a body we have an image of a
> >'whole', the whole body is samutti sacca. Usually we pay attention to
> >the outward appearance of things and the details and take them for
> >real. That is a delusion, as we read in the suttas. We usually take
> >concepts for realities.
>
> That was well put and is in fact the subject of a whole Mahāyāna sūtra (the
> Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra). Are you familiar with anywhere in the Pāli
> scriptures where the Buddha discusses that, i. e. our propensity to
> superimpose a concept on reality and take it as real and permanent?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Mettā, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@... <vangorko%40xs4all.nl>>
> To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, December 24, 2009 5:05:51 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Was the Buddha Obliged to Observe Vinaya Rules?, no
> 2.
>
> Dear DC,
> Op 23-dec-2009, om 18:48 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven:
>
> > You say "No problem if you do not agree." I understand that
> > statement as: Since what I say is the truth, whatever you say
> > doesn't maater to me. There is a very beutiful expression used by
> > the Buddha to express that attitude: "idameva sacca..m moghama~n~na. m"
> -------
> N: On the other list (dsg) we use this expression all the time, to
> show that different opinions are welcome. Some people regret it that
> there are different opinions and quite strong language is used at
> times, but it is O.K. That is all.
>
> Let us proceed with the next points.
> ----------
> DC: You have said: "There are many degrees of sammaadi.t.thi"
> Your foregoing statment is a misrepresentation of the Buddha Dhamma.
> According to the sutta's thee are two kinds of sammaadi.tthi.
> By the way, according to the suttas, misrepresenting the Buddha is
> one of the worst paapakammas one can do.
> -------
> N: I think you refer to lokiya sammaadi.t.thi and lokuttara
> sammaadi.t.thi?
> Speaking of lokiya sammaadi.t.thi, it can be developed, it can grow.
> One listens to the Dhamma and begins to understand a little more.
> Pariyatti level of understanding can condition pa.tipatt level, it
> can develop so that it becomes direct understanding of realities, and
> then the level of pa.tivedha can be reached.
> ---------
> DC: Conditioned mental phenomena and physical phenomena can be
> classified as five khandhas.
> Please tell me what are the mental phenomena and physical phenomena.
> What do you mean by 'PHYSICAL'?
> May I say again the you are using words without precise meanings.
> ---------
> N: Ruupakkhandha includes all physical or material phenomena inside
> or outside, not merely bodily phenomena.
> PTS translation, S.. III, Khandhavagga, III, 77, Raadha: We read that
> Raadha says to the Buddha:
> <How in him who knows, how in him who sees, lord, are there in this
> body, together with its consciousness, and likewise in all external
> objects, no (more) ideas of 'I' and 'mine', no more leanings to
> conceit?'
> 'Whatsoever material object, Raadha, be it past, future or present,
> inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, one
> regards thus: "This is not mine; this am not I; this is not the Self
> of me"--that is seeing things as they really are, by right insight....>
> -------
> The word paramattha dhamma is not welcome to you. We can use the word
> dhamma or reality if you like. It is different from pa~n~natti or
> concept. A dhamma like sound has a characteristic that cannot be
> altered, no matter how you name it, no matter in what language. Its
> characteristic is the same, sound is always sound, it can be heard.
> It is a reality.
> A concept is different from a reality, it is sammutti sacca. A word
> or a body is sammutti sacca, it does not have an unalterable
> characteristic. When we perceive a body we have an image of a
> 'whole', the whole body is samutti sacca. Usually we pay attention to
> the outward appearance of things and the details and take them for
> real. That is a delusion, as we read in the suttas. We usually take
> concepts for realities.
>
> ------
> Nina.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]