- Hi RobK,
> RK: I see. You just came in on a discussion with ken about heart base and asked me several questions. Something has happened in the meantime.It's a bit different. The recent heart base discussion was already the new approach so to speak and it seemed to work quite amicably - you state your belief, I ask you to elaborate, you reply, and I then don't propose a counter-interpretation nor voice any comments whether your interpretation is right or wrong - in that way I don't question the validity of your beliefs anymore. And in that way the discussion on heart base seemed to work - I understood a bit better what you were trying to say, others did hopefully as well, and no dramas.
What I was referencing were our discussions before that, on right speech, right view, etc, all of which ended badly the moment I questioned the validity of your beliefs. Hence, if you remember, I stated that I will no longer question your beliefs so as not to upset you. Hence my present request to leave me out of the argument whether your beliefs are right or wrong.
> Can you clarify, this seems rather insulting, do you feel i was attacking you here?It had to do with my previous stating that I won't question your beliefs anymore - so I'm now requesting not to ask me to go down that road again. From my discussions with you, I got the impression that you can't take criticism very well, so I don't want to upset you because then I get upset, other people here get upset, etc, and it's just no good.
> Perhpas I can ask the moderators to step in and ask you not to make overly personal commentsPlease do as you see fit. I outlined how badly our discussions used to end before when I would openly question your beliefs. Therefore, I tried to find a solution, which to me seems - not to question your beliefs but just ask to elaborate on them. As for whether I think your beliefs are right or wrong, it seems better to keep it to myself and I don't want to voice it anymore so as not to cause trouble. Hence the request to please keep me out of the argument whether your beliefs are right or not. I certainly appreciate discussing dhamma points with you, but I don't want to be drawn into the argument whether you're right or not.
- Hi Rob E,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
> > S: Apart from 7 "gross" rupas experienced through the sense doors (i.e visible object, sound, odor, taste, solidity, temperature and motion), any other rupas can only be experienced through the mind door.
>R: That is interesting - doesn't quite make sense to me, as my concept of rupas has always been somewhat physicalized. But I guess that rupas can be concrete and yet somewhat removed from what we normally think of as physical.
S: Yes and there are gross rupas, such as the sense objects referred to above and subtle rupas, not readily apparent. There are also 'concrete' rupas and 'non-concrete' rupas. The intimations and space are 'non-concrete' rupas.
> > Some of these are "sabhava" which have their own characteristics which can be discerned, while others are "asabhava" which means they don't arise directly from the primary rupas but are attributes or dependent on other rupas, such as space which separates kalapas of rupas and depends on those kalapas.
>R: So space for instance is relative to the properties of the arising kalapas, while others are more independently arisen.
S: All rupas depend on the 4 primary rupas and the asabhava rupas such as space, depend on the arising of various kalapas for their arising in between these kalapas.
This just shows the intricacy of dhammas, how there are so many different 'elements' or realities arising and falling away, dependent on various conditions. No people, no things at all.
> > S: The kamma is the cetana accompanying the citta. When there is harsh speech, for example, the citta conditions the speech intimation group or rupas (numerous times, of course) and the meaning is conveyed.
>R: Okay, so the intensity, one could say, of the cetana, will be expressed through the intensity of the "harsh speech," for instance. The harsh speech represents the intention of the citta, but does not itself cause additional kamma.
S: Right. Of course that "harsh speech" may sound very gentle or be given in just a whisper. Terrorists can have very sweet-sounding voices. It's the intensity of the anger or other akusala at that time.
>Yet it is hard to accept that the killing of another being, for instance, has only the significance in terms of kamma of expressing the kamma already created by the cetana, and that there is no additional "penalty" for the carrying out of the act of violence.
S: The 'penalty' is in the result that follows and in the accumulated tendency for such kinds of cetana. Very dangerous indeed.
>R: Is that in fact true, that the kamma is all carried by the cetana, and that the actual killing does not add to the degree of the kamma?
S: Yes, the kamma is the accumulation of cetana to that degree. When it is strong enough to perform such a deed, the kamma is 'heaped up' in such a way, ready to lead to more deeds with ever greater results in lives to come.
>R: Can the speech intimation rupa be discerned/experienced? And if so, by whom [speaker or recipient] and how?
S: We can think about and speculate about intentions and intimations, but the speech intimation rupa itself is a very subtle rupa, an asabhava rupa, not readily experienced or known.