Jump to content


Member Since 02 May 2006
Offline Last Active Aug 03 2014 09:32 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: “triple root-cause”

03 April 2012 - 03:50 PM

QUOTE(Robert @ Apr 2 2012, 09:43 PM) View Post

Please explain what "triple root-cause” means in the reading below.
I've not come across it until now, thank you.

PATH OF PURIFICATION Part 1: Virtue (Sěla)

page 5

“When a wise man, established well in virtue,
Develops consciousness and understanding,
Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious
He succeeds in disentangling this tangle” (S I 13).

page 7

7. Here is a brief commentary [on the stanza]. Established well in virtue: standing
on virtue. It is only one actually fulfilling virtue who is here said to “stand on
virtue.” So the meaning here is this: being established well in virtue by fulfilling
virtue. A man: a living being. Wise: possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause.

What is “triple root-cause” please?


Hi Robert,

According to Visuddhi-magga


Page 3, footnote 4:

"'With triple root-cause' means with non-greed, non-hate and non-delusion."



In Topic: Cant separate khandhas?

19 July 2011 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE(RobertK @ Jul 18 2011, 08:57 PM) View Post

Dear Alex,
Op 14-jul-2011, om 16:54 heeft A T het volgende geschreven:

> But didn't the sutta explicitly said that feeling, perception and
> consciousness cannot be examined separetely?
> ""Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
> disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from
> another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one
> feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. "
> http://www.accesstoi...n.043.than.html
> Please note that one cannot separate one from another, and one
> cannot delineate the difference among them.
> "what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one
> cognizes" .
N: It helps to use the transl of Ven. Bodhi and the notes taken from
the co: <Wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the
intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every
occasion of consciousness.>
THus here there is no reference to pa~n~naa that arises shortly after
the naama khandhas have fallen away and can be aware of one
characteristic at a time.

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

Hi Nina (and Robert),

Thanks for this. Nina, you aren't suggesting, are you, that pa~n~naa can differentiate between vedanaa, sa~n~naa and vi~n~naana, are you? Rather than simply understanding the lakkha.na inherent in all of them conjointly?