Re: Conventional still matters
- Hi Howard, Rob E & all
--- In email@example.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>H: There also needs to be specific rupas that constitute the killing, a.k.a. "the actions" and also called the kamma-patha. Without this, there is only thinking and intending, i.e., there is only incompleted kamma.
Yes, if it is just thinking, not complete kamma which will bring its results as you say.
As quoted quite recently by Ken O from the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta:
<<But as regards the particular terms, the phrase killing living beings means
the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a
living being (pana) is, according to ordinary usage, a being (satta); in the
ultimate sense it is the life faculty. "Killing living beings" is the volition
to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it
is a living being, and
which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors
of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the
In relation to beings such as animals, etc., which lack moral qualities (guna),
it is less blameworthy in respect of small living beings and more blameworthy in
respect of beings with large bodies. Why? Because of the magnitude of the effort
involved. And when the effort involved is equal, because of the magnitude of the
object (the being killed). In relation to beings such as humans, etc., who
possess moral qualities, it is less blameworthy in respect of beings with few
good qualities and more blameworthy in respect of beings with great qualities.
When the size of the body and moral qualities are equal, however, it is less
blameworthy when the defilements and activity are mild, and more blameworthy
when they are strong: so it should be understood.
There are five constituents for this (act of killing a living being): a living
being, awareness that it is a living being, the mind to kill, activity, and the
death (of the being) thereby.
There are six means: one's own person, command, a missile, a fixed contrivance,
a magical spell, supernormal power.>>
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: It shows that there are just dhammas. Of course there are reasons, conditions why there is thinking now about 'computer' and not 'armchair', for example. Each visible object at each moment is different, each hardness experienced through bodysense is different.
This makes sense of how such things are differentiated.
> Nonetheless, there never is an experience of 'computer' or 'armchair', only of rupas experienced through the senses and thinking about these in different ways.
Do you think the Buddha's point in the simile of the chariot is that there is no chariot at all?
- - - - - - - - - - - -