Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death.

Expand Messages
  • jonoabb
    Hi Herman ... You may choose to characterise a stream of cittas as a self if you like, but that does not mean an inconsistency with the notion that dhammas
    Message 1 of 367 , Jun 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Herman

      > I see a huge inconsistency.
      >
      > 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.

      You may choose to characterise a stream of cittas as a 'self' if you
      like, but that does not mean an inconsistency with the notion that
      dhammas (including cittas) have the characteristic of 'not-self'.

      Over to you ;-))

      Jon
    • Herman Hofman
      Hi Jon, ... As Nina is pointing out in her commentary quotes on the DN33 thread, food is one of the conditions for dhammas. Food, you know, as in morsel food.
      Message 367 of 367 , Jul 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jon,

        2008/7/9 Jonothan Abbott <jonabbott@...>:
        > Hi Herman
        >
        > 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?

        As Nina is pointing out in her commentary quotes on the DN33 thread,
        food is one of the conditions for dhammas. Food, you know, as in
        morsel food.


        >>> When talking about deeds/action in the context of kamma, the dhamma in
        >>> 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
        > consequences.

        There's nothing conventional about putting morsel food into your
        mouth, nor the certain death that will follow from a consistent
        failure to do that.

        >
        > 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.

        Ohhh, really? The eating of food can be known, and commentated on, as
        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 :-)

        >
        > 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.
        >

        I think the facts of life are an inconvenient truth to those who
        desire an "ultimate" understanding.

        Cheers


        Herman
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.