[dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death.
- Hi Herman
> I see a huge inconsistency.You may choose to characterise a stream of cittas as a 'self' if you
> Your explanation relies on the existence of an individual stream of
> consciousness, a closed system that conditions its own future
> conditions. That is a good enough definition for a self, in my books.
like, but that does not mean an inconsistency with the notion that
dhammas (including cittas) have the characteristic of 'not-self'.
Over to you ;-))
- Hi Jon,
2008/7/9 Jonothan Abbott <jonabbott@...>:
> Hi HermanAs Nina is pointing out in her commentary quotes on the DN33 thread,
> I'm getting the distinct impression you'd like to hear me say that a
> dhamma is a consequence of conditions. OK then, consider it said ;-))
> What next?
food is one of the conditions for dhammas. Food, you know, as in
>>> When talking about deeds/action in the context of kamma, the dhamma inThere's nothing conventional about putting morsel food into your
>>> question is cetana/intention (the mental factor).
>> Intention has no consequences in the world, Jon. It may be a fact not
>> to your liking, but your parents had to DO something other than
>> intending, to bring you about. I can draw pictures if that will help :-)
> I'm of course aware that, in the conventional view of things, it is
> bodily or verbal action, rather than (mere) intention, that brings
mouth, nor the certain death that will follow from a consistent
failure to do that.
>Ohhh, really? The eating of food can be known, and commentated on, as
> Nevertheless, it is the teaching of the Buddha (as I understand it) that
> in that conventional scenario the significant dhamma, for the purposes
> of the law of kamma, is the mental factor of intention, for it is this
> that gives rise to the bodily or mental action.
> The mental factor of intention, like all conditioned dhammas, has the
> characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. It is one of the dhammas
> constituting 'the all' that, according to the suttas, is to be
> understood and abandoned. Bodily or verbal actions, on the other hand,
> cannot be the object of awareness/insight.
a necessary condition for dhammas to arise, but that condition cannot
be known by awareness or insight???
I think someone has played a joke on you, and forget to tell you :-)
>I think the facts of life are an inconvenient truth to those who
> So no need to explain any further about the facts of life ;-)) The
> teachings do not deny conventional truths, but they point to truths that
> operate at a different level to the conventional.
desire an "ultimate" understanding.