Re: Fw: The Storm
- Hi Herman,
> H: At the risk of appearing harsh, could I ask you to, rather than wriggle, or make innuendo's about what I probably mean by kamma,------------
KH: Why do you object to my making innuendos? Should I not suggest you believe in a controlling self?
If you prefer I will simply state my opinion: you, Herman, believe in a controlling self.
> H: just tell me what you mean by kamma? That would just get straight to the point of my question.-------------------------
KH: You already know what I mean by kamma. We have had this type of conversation many times before.
H: You could however fruitfully anticipate future questions, and already bear in mind when answering whether you actually believe that kamma is somehow vipaka.
KH: I'll admit they are both conditioned dhammas; one is a cetasika and the other a cita. Neither contains a controlling self nor pertains to one in any way. So, from the perspective of sakkaya-ditthi, there is no meaningful difference between kamma and vipaka, or any other dhamma.
- Hi Pt,
--- In email@example.com, "ptaus1" <ptaus1@...> wrote:
> > S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas.
> pt: Well, yes, so if we're talking about dhammas, then instead of control we should be saying ditthi, I think. That's a dhamma, whereas control can have any number of invested meanings.
S: When there is an idea that we have control in life, it is ditthi. It's a way of explaining a kind of atta-view. There are different kinds of ditthi. The Buddha elaborated and explained these using many different kinds of words. We can read or hear anything with right or wrong view.
> pt: As a new internet buddhist, I wasn't familiar with dhammas, but I was intimately familiar with control. Consequently, it seemed like an important realisation that what seems like an apparent control to me is in fact just ditthi. A dhamma. And conditioned at that. On the other hand, the expression that dhammas cannot be controlled always seemed to miss that point. But I guess it speaks differently to different people.
S: Dhammas cannot be controlled because they are conditioned and there is no one to exert any control. I think it is the ignorance and wrong view that is the problem, rather than the wording.
For example, we can read different translations of suttas inc TB's with or without any misunderstanding. We can read newspaper reports or anything with or without wrong understanding too
> > S: Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development?
> pt: Yes.
> > S: If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?"
> pt: Thanks, hence I feel the validity of the conclusion that without powers, our "conscious attempts" to (have) insight (into) something (right now) is basically just ditthi (right now). (In other words, apparent control at this point is akusala.)
S: And with these balas, powers, there would be no "conscious attempts" to have insight or any other realities arise because there is the clear understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta. Even for the Buddha, whatever arose was by conditions.
> > S: If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now?
> pt: I was more wondering about pre-jhana development of samatha. I mean, I assume powers must be developed before jhana can actually happen. Further I assume that it has to do with more than just wishing not to see, etc. I mean, if there are no powers, then this wish would be akusala, I assume.
S: Of course - any wishing for anything to arise is akusala. Even for those with highly developed samatha, non-attachment to seeing does not occur by wishing, but by the development of panna.
It always comes back to panna - whether we are talking about the development of samatha or satipatthana.
> > S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm.
> pt: Ok, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's outside of sasana and there's no knowledge of dhammas, so how would bhavana (pre-jhana, non-sila, non-dana, non-insight) occur?
S: Like now, through the wise consideration of objects that can bring calm. For example, even without any understanding of realities, there can be wise or unwise consideration about death, about kindness to others, about colour, about breath, about generosity.
Of course, occasional moments of wise consideration with calm cannot be considered as bhavana - they are just occasional moments of kusala. In order to be bhavana, it is to be a habit, a development of such wise consideration.
Would we like to have more such wise consideration, more such calm? Is that our reason for wishing to know? In that case, it's bound to be attachment, not detachment.
> Thanks for the discussion.
S: Always a pleasure, Pt. You always raise good points and topics which help me and others too, I'm sure.