Re: Nargajunas Stance...
- Hi Sarah, and Phil.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> Hi Rob E,
> --- In email@example.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@> wrote:
> > Did it ever occur to you that people come to dsg due to conditions also and that they are supposed to be there? It's vipaka isn't it?
> S: Whilst we just think in terms of the whole situations, we won't begin to understand conditions.
While I do realize this, at the same time the experiences that are conglomerated conceptually into the concept of dsg are a preponderance of certain vipaka elements. If there is plenty of bad kamma there will be lots of unpleasant moments arising in series, even if that series is interrupted by other kinds of moments and even if those moments themselves are also varied.
But in order to have the recurrent sorts of sets of vipakas that add up to reading a message, then writing a response and having them be about Dhamma, and then have this same sort of pattern repeat again for decades at certain times of the day or week -- there must be some sort of consistency to the kamma that gives rise to this relatively consistent set of vipakas, would that not be so to some extent or in some way? It doesn't seem very random in any case.
> So to be a little more precise, vipaka are moments such as seeing now, hearing now, body consciousness now. "Coming to DSG..." is really just an idea. So many different dhammas from moment to moment.
That is true, but we don't have every single kind of moment in thoroughly random appearances. They are sensible sets of vipaka experiences that lend themselves to certain kinds of thoughts and concepts, is that not so? So if the Buddha were to say, as he did on any number of occasions, "This kind of activity will lead to this kind of unpleasant vipaka," such as the man who kept killing animals and experienced the vipaka of being an animal that was painfully killed by a hunter for a number of lifetimes, we would understand that those vipakas are experienced in a variety of variegated moments of different kinds, but that the Buddha is pointing towards a type of vipaka which will make up the preponderance, or a certain segment at least, of a person's experience in a next "life" or "lifetimes." And those patterns do correspond to this or that group of kammas, and so on.
> >Can someone choose to ignore their kamma and choose a different vipaka? Can you? Your unpleasant vipaka is to have to listen to a bunch of idiots who spout wrong view all the time.
> S: So seeing now is vipaka. We cannot say that the visible object seen at this moment is wholesome or unwholesome vipaka (result of good or bad deeds). We do know that moments of seeing are always accompanied by neutral feeling, however. So no "unpleasant vipaka" when seeing or hearing.
> The unpleasantness referred to such as when we think we hear a 'bunch of idiots' is the dosa and domanassa (unpleasant feeling) which arises later when there is thinking about ideas of what has been seen and heard. These are accumulated tendencies that lead to more unwholesome kamma which will bring unpleasant results in future.
So how is the vipaka said to be "pleasant" or "unpleasant" vipaka as the result of kusala or akusala kamma? Is this not correct?
If I am experiencing lots of unpleasant moments in a hell state, such as the hell of pins and needles [as I recall] or the hell of infinite crushing [I recall some hell states such as these,] are these not to be seen as unpleasant? Is all the unpleasantness of being burnt to death with hot oil the result of secondary feeling-reactions to the hot burning sensations?
And if this is so, why do we say that even the Buddha endures physical suffering, since such suffering is all through sensory experience - which must be vipaka...? - am I confused...? The Buddha would of course not have any secondary reactive akusala to any sensory experience, so this would not apply to him. Yet he complained of aches and pains in his later years. "This body is like an old cart" that creaks and will have to be replaced soon...
> >May as well see the nature of those dhammas rather than complain all day long.
> S: Understanding now of what appears is always most precious!
That was my point in the whole thing, but I was being a little overly jovial in my presentation... :-)
- - - - - - - - - - -
- Dear Thomas,
Op 3 aug 2013, om 03:49 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:
> Th: Thanks for your reply. It brought my attention to it. Yes, according to the SN suttas, one should first fully know the phenomena of the five aggregates (nama-rupa) themselves, and then fully see them as anicca, dukkha, or anatta.------
N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words. It is not thinking about them. But for all of us it takes quite some time before we really understand this. We are bound to take thinking for awareness. Above all, there is no person who is trying to know, sati and pa~n~naa perform their functions. They arise because of conditions and these are listening to the Dhamma and considering it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]