Re: Problems in life.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
> > ===============
> J: Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement "Countless kalaps make up the physical eye". His comment could be that this could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks down into atoms and molecules.
> Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made the same assumption as KenH myself). But you may have not caught his drift, in which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely).
> > ===============
Thanks for coming in on this discussion. Please continue.
Obviously atoms and molecules have no existence at all, they are merely invented ideas of scientists.
But kalapas are real. Of course physical eye is merely a concept with no existence, but we need to refer to body and eye and heart etc to be able to discuss Dhamma.
Nina writes in her book on physical phenomena about foetus and body ( of course she knows they are merely designations) yet for some reason when I use terms like eye or body there are objections. I would certainly be very happy if ken clarifies more, maybe to reply to this post, and on the other posts I made.
Nina: "The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in order
to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rupas. Nutrition is
another factor which produces rupas. When food has been taken by a living being
it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rupas. Some of
the groups of rupa of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by
temperature and some by nutrition. ""
> > ===============
> > --- In email@example.com, "Ken
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and
> > then
> > > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma
> > or
> > > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos
> > > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same
> > as
> > > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps
> > > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can
> > > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of
> > rage.
> > > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat
> > and
> > > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara
> > > conditiong rupa. Is this ok?
> > > ------------------
> > KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific
> > explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the
> > terms `kalapa' and `rupa.'
> > >
> > > -----
- 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.