Re: Problems in life.
- Hi Sarah and Rob E,
>> KH: Why was that monk not blamed by the Buddha? Was it because he did not intentionally kill anything? I don't think so.------
> S: I do. There are so many similar examples in the Vinaya.
KH: I'm not sure what either of us is referring to there. Perhaps I was trying to say to Rob E that the Buddha taught satipathana. He didn't teach, for example, the absence of akusala without satipathana.
So I think I was saying the blind monk's absence of akusala was not a commonplace absence. It was in fact an absence that was due to the Path. I was suggesting that the monk might have been an ariyan, and the non-arising of akusala kamma patha was due to the destruction (complete or partial) of defilements.
>> KH: He intentionally walked even though there was a caterpillar plague and walking would, in his case, inevitably mean killing. So it was the same thing.walking because of inevitable deaths of insects or wear a net over one's face.
> S: As Rob E mentioned, this would be a Jain approach if one were to avoid
It's the intention that counts.
KH: As I was saying to Rob, in ultimate reality there was *no akusala kamma patha.* So our conventional stories of what happened should reflect that ultimate reality. It's hard and I think even the monk's friends found it hard to think of a story in which someone could walk down a caterpillar infested track without being in some way malicious or irresponsible.
Can you think of a suitable conventional explanation? I know we all drive our cars, for example, knowing full well that insects are going to be accidentally killed. We take it for granted that there is nothing wrong no unwholesome intention involved in doing that, but isn't it just a matter of degree? If people (instead of mere insects) were inevitably going to be accidentally killed every time we drove our cars, would we still be excused for doing so?
- 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.