Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening
- Dear Ken O,
--- On Thu, 21/4/11, Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:
>>S: As Ken H quoted recently from the Yamaka Sutta:
>"In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]."
>>The weighty kamma is because of the intensity of the hatred whilst performing such an act. This intense kamma patha is due to wrong view. As discussed recently with Vince and others, a sotapanna will have no idea of killing a being because of the understanding of all namas and rupas as anatta. It is wrong view which thinks our deeds can kill other beings. In fact it is only kamma that can condition the cuti citta, the last moment of life. It's a vipaka citta, like patisandhi (the birth citta) and all the bhavanga cittas. The more we understand life as one moment of citta, the less will we live under the delusion that we live among people, wanting to harm and kill. In fact, there's never anyone at all, just the arising of kusala and akusala cittas which depend on conditions.
>KO: your statements are not in line with the commentary
S: All of them? :-))
K)> and you did not answer my question, why is there a difference. If there is never being at all, why do Devadatta experiences suffering in Avici hell due to making a Buddha bleed or King Ajatasattu have to suffer in the boiling in the Hell of Copper Cauldrons for 60,000 years for killing of his father. Since it is nama and rupa, why should some kamma be more weighty then?
S: As I said, because of the intensity of the intention (kamma) that motivates the particular deeds. As we know, all other things being equal, the intensity of intention to kill a large animal is greater than to kill a small animal or insect and the intensity to kill a human.....one of virtue.....an ariyan is greater still. The intensity of intention and the attempt to harm or kill the Buddha is greatest of all. When we refer to Devadatta, Ajatasattu, we are referring to particular namas and rupas. They are not all the same:-) If they were, there'd be no reason to name these ones Devadatta and those ones Buddha. Each visible object is different, each citta is different. Lots of suttas and texts refer to the different kinds of kamma involved.
>K: Under right view there is such a statement in the suttas and the texts which I told Ken H, there is father, mother, noble ones and Buddha etc. Also are we talking about sotapanna right now or wordlings. It is impossible for sotapanna to do such thing precisely becuse he knows there is noble ones, father and mother and Buddha and also he would not change teacher to another sectarian.
S: A sotapanna would not do such things precisely because he knows there are no beings in reality and he fully understands kamma and other conditions. You keep referring to the quote about father, mother and so on, misunderstanding that the text was referring to those who believed there were no results of kamma. This is what I wrote before about the passage referring to those who believed there was no father, mother with regard to fruit of good kamma etc:
>S: This is the serious wrong view of annihilation and this passage is
repeated in many suttas.
In MN 41, Nanamoli/Bodhi give the following summary explanation to the
same quote in note 425:
"This is a morally nihilistic materialist view that denies an afterlife
and kammic retribution. "There is nothing given" means that there is no
fruit of giving; "no this world, no other world" that there is no rebirth
into either this world or a world beyond; "no mother, no father" that
there is no fruit of good conduct and bad conduct towards mother and
father. The statement about recluses and brahmins denies the existence of
Buddhas and arahants."
A lot more is said about this under "The Doctrine of Ajita Kesakambala" in
the Saamma~n~naphala Sutta and its commentary. For example, in B.Bodhi's
translation of these (BPS wheel), it says:
"Cy. By denying kamma one denies its result [because there is no result
when there is no kamma]. By denying the result one denies kamma [because
when there is no result, kamma becomes inefficacious]. Thus all these
thinkers [S: inc. Ajita], by denying both (kamma and its results), in
effect espouse acausalims (ahetukavaada), the inefficacy of action
(akiriyavaada), and moreal nihilism (natthikavaada)."
Also more on this quote in these two messages. The second one is Nina's from the
>KO: Also it is not necessary all objects of volitions are nama and rupa, please see the commentary of right view
S: No one has suggested they are.
>KO: If there are only namas and rupas, then there should be no father and mother, and no noble ones and no Buddha. Then should not be any difference in kamma
S: There are only namas and rupas in reality (see intro to first chapter in Abhidhammattha Sangaha). Some of these namas and rupas we refer to as "father", "mother" and so on. On kamma, as explained.
- Thank you, Nina!! :-)
P. S. My very best to Lodewijk!
In a message dated 7/13/2011 5:43:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
I agree and meant it like you said; not a self or soul is there only
Op 12-jul-2011, om 14:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
> I do think your answer makes sense, Nina. What, however, is your[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> understanding of his knowing "that Saariputta was there"?
> I take it to mean that the Buddha knew that within what is called
> "physical proximity," the relatively clear and pure stream/
> whirlpool of mental
> and physical phenomena conventionally identified as "Saariputta" was
> present and active. The Buddha knew that there was no separate
> entity there, no
> self and no soul and no real being named "Saariputta", but the
> that are the basis for the Saariputta concept were, indeed, rising
> and falling
> in a coherent and lawful manner.