[dsg] Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin
- Hi Rob E and Herman
--- In email@example.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
> Hi Herman and Jon.
> RE: This is a subject of some interest to me, so if you don't mind, I will jump in.
> With a little luck, I can find areas to disagree with both of you. :-)
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
> > > --- In email@example.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
> > > > H: Very happy to elaborate. But before I do I want to make it very clear
> > > > upfront that in talking about kamma, I am using that term exactly in the
> > > > same sense as it is used in the sutta from the Sutta Nipata that we are
> > > now
> > > > both referring to: and that sense is kamma as action, as opposed to
> > > > intention.
> > > > ===============
> > >
> > > J: To my understanding, kamma as action and kamma as intention mean the
> > > same, the difference being solely in the manner of expression.
> RE: When Jon says that, I believe he means they are "the same" because the cetana is the same, and it's the cetana that counts, not the expression. If one is looking for the active expression of the kamma to "count," then Jon is still not agreeing with anything like that. The outer action does not count, if I read Jon correctly.
J: `Action' is the literal meaning of `kamma'. From Nyanatiloka's `Buddhist Dictionary', entry for `karma':
'action', correctly speaking denotes the wholesome and unwholesome volitions (kusala- and akusala-cetanaa) and their concomitant mental factors, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings.
These karmical volitions (kamma cetanaa) become manifest as wholesome or unwholesome actions by
"Volition (cetanaa), o monks, is what I call action (cetanaaham bhikkhave kammam vadaami), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind. ....." (A.VI.63).
Kamma is a very complicated area. For example, in the case of the akusala kamma of killing, the virtue of the person killed has a bearing on the severity of the kamma. Yet factors such as this are said to be reflected in the intention.
So I hesitate to agree with the proposition that 'the outer action does not count' :-))
- Hi Ken H,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
> KH: I am tempted to say "Hooray, I was right all along!" but there is sure to be a catch.
S: The catch is really when we think that it's "I" who was right (or wrong) and forget about dhammas again:-)
> KH: Good, I hope we can all agree on that. I am prepared to accept that my [personal, idiosyncratic] way of expanding on that point is incomprehensible to others and sounds like armchair philosophy, or intellectualising. I shall refrain from holding court on that particular subject for the foreseeable future.
S: So many DSGers including ourselves, Nina, Lukas, Alberto, the Vietnamese & Jagkrit will be travelling as from today (for those from Europe) and from tomorrow (for those like ourselves in Asia) - so look forward to reading your expansions and those of others while we're away:-)
> KH: Yes, one moment at a time. So there is really no 14 year period and no travelling to HK; there is just the present reality.
> PPS: Corrections welcome! :-)
S: All sounds good to me.