|
Post by inavalan on Oct 20, 2020 13:22:54 GMT -5
one of the problems inherent in proscribing a moral compass: judgement. Is it possible that your interpretation of the canon is such as to justify your own way of life? This stand by itself as a great point.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 21, 2020 1:24:24 GMT -5
Can you apply this to yourself, as well? We all can intuit "wrong action" and "wrong speech", especially in the extreme, and, also, in retrospect. Those translate into "right action" and "right speech", but in practical terms, it's always possible to hypothesize, and even, encounter a grey area. From skimming this (which has an undeniable beauty to it, btw), the obvious low-hanging fruit is this: Probably to an extent … But I'm conscious of the fact that I split my time pretty evenly between what I want to do, and what with my better judgement I think I should be doing. So, classic split mind. What I don't do, for example, is look at the vinaya pitaka and find a way to dismiss it. I look at it, and deep down know I could be doing better. They're not excluded from the path, just the more advanced aspects of it. As far as occupations are concerned, some are more virtuous than others, and therefore result in the production of better kamma. For example, the healer being a more meritorious than the arms dealer as an occupation. But as you rightly point out the truth is, ultimately none are entirely exempt, and following that trajectory sails toward what it really means to say 'life is dukkha'. That the continued production of kamma (occupation) binds us to samsara. The city dweller can't escape this, and in order to do so, at some point he would need to leave it all behind. None of that justifies my own way of life, if anything the opposite. But then I'm not seeking to justify it, but rather am content to merely be conscious of the fact, for the time being. Well then, they're excluded from at least a part of it. I opine that this is a misapprehension of the ubiquitous nature of spiritual opportunity. That's not to take anything away from a monastic ideal, but that's one path, a different path, and no two paths are ever exactly the same, but all offer those same opportunities, which are always immediate, and for any seeker willing to open to them, constant. Strikes me that this has spiritual power when the notion of and question of virtue is directed inward. We all have the capacity to intuit what's pointed to there, and we all have the opportunity to get self-honest about whatever conditioning we're responding to and operating within and whether or not we're conscious of that as it's happening. When directed outward, however, it becomes something different - not necessarily always bad, definitely not always good (by the same measures of value used to construct the moral value judgements), but, always relative. Examples abound of "healer's" that cause far more suffering than they're presented with, and sometimes the arms that get dealt are used to topple tyrants. Morality is, as a practical matter, a necessary component of any system of civic/social order, but, it's also ever a potential for mental confusion. Sometimes the confusion is because of a lack of existential clarity, but, there is one singular movement of mind standing outside all of that which is the epitome of this clarity, that demonstrates the confusion underlying the moral premise.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 22, 2020 6:58:00 GMT -5
Okay, so basically you are just explaining your opinions on Buddhism here. Fair enough. When I think of Buddhism, I usually have Zen in mind. Now, on the surface, Zen may at times seem like a huge departure from the original teaching. Nevertheless, Zen does make a lot of references to the original teachings which can be seen in the commentaries of famous koan collections, like the Blue Cliff Record. Actually, I would say that some koans can only be understood fully if one knows what specific sutra is referred to. And that can be found in the commentaries. Unfortunately, only few people seem to know about these references. I think I'll do an extra thread on that some time in the future, and with my own translations, because what I've noticed is that most translations in English are less than ideal, sometimes debatable and in some rare cases just flat-out wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the source text. Most translations seem to rely on the Japanese text and Japanese commentaries which may have been corrupted. So it's worth going back to the Chinese original. I think the same can be said about other Buddhist texts. But I don't know Sanskrit yet), so I wouldn't know. That's why to me AW's input was very helpful. But you obviously see that differently. So yes, let's agree to disagree for now. I've become quite a big fan of Wattsy, and especially enjoyed going through the texts and video's you've been putting up on the thread. It's true I actually preferred the earlier 'non-buddhisty' stuff in the thread. I find his voice to be melodically hypnotic, he's incredibly insightful, and his ability to talk, and indeed to express himself generally is first rate. Quite marvellous. He comes up with some fantastic analogies to illustrate his points, some of them are really awesome. However, regarding his take on Buddhist doctrine, although some of it struck a chord, I found I actually didn't resonate with a large portion of it. Maybe due to a certain limitation in the insight behind it (fighting talk, I know), but if I'm honest, I also sensed his interpretation perhaps to be coloured by a need to justify his own lifestyle. At this point I'm also happy to agree to disagree on some of these issues, and am just pleased to be able to get into highlighting some of the discrepancies between the positions. At least the way I see it. I feel it can then be useful to have them in mind going forward. Personally I'm not particularly disposed toward Zen, and when I think of Buddhism, I usually have Theravada in mind. I've talked a little about that before. But to clarify, when I talk about interpretation, I tend to be talking about an interpretation of what the various source material really points to, (both 'compartmentally' and as a whole). Rather than what specific words were supposedly used in any given text. I mean obviously it's linked, and important to a degree, but the truth is, I put surprisingly little emphasis on that when reaching my conclusions. I guess what I mean is, a lot of it's down to the structure and the context of a given piece, but also the process I employ in order to glean the nature and scope of what's being pointed to. A process that is as broad as it is long, hehe. A pseudo-perennial philosophy. Yes, he has a great way of explaining things. And I think Watts is more a Taoist at heart, not a Buddhist. He does talk a lot about Zen though, and that's probably because Zen is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. But I think he's more leaning toward the Taoist roots of Zen. That's why his presentation of Buddhism may seem a bit too simplistic to some people.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 24, 2020 8:48:44 GMT -5
Probably to an extent … But I'm conscious of the fact that I split my time pretty evenly between what I want to do, and what with my better judgement I think I should be doing. So, classic split mind. What I don't do, for example, is look at the vinaya pitaka and find a way to dismiss it. I look at it, and deep down know I could be doing better. They're not excluded from the path, just the more advanced aspects of it. As far as occupations are concerned, some are more virtuous than others, and therefore result in the production of better kamma. For example, the healer being a more meritorious than the arms dealer as an occupation. But as you rightly point out the truth is, ultimately none are entirely exempt, and following that trajectory sails toward what it really means to say 'life is dukkha'. That the continued production of kamma (occupation) binds us to samsara. The city dweller can't escape this, and in order to do so, at some point he would need to leave it all behind. None of that justifies my own way of life, if anything the opposite. But then I'm not seeking to justify it, but rather am content to merely be conscious of the fact, for the time being. Well then, they're excluded from at least a part of it. I opine that this is a misapprehension of the ubiquitous nature of spiritual opportunity. That's not to take anything away from a monastic ideal, but that's one path, a different path, and no two paths are ever exactly the same, but all offer those same opportunities, which are always immediate, and for any seeker willing to open to them, constant. No doubt that's all true to a greater extent. It's just that for me, the lifestyle of the city dweller is inevitably subject to the continued production of kamma, whilst the true end of the pathless path comes only by way of the cessation of that. The ley western lifestyle doesn't really lend itself to this cessation. There's too much 'stimulation'.
It's a good piece you've linked to actually. Incidentally, those four types of individuals detailed in the article, (which you rightly said should best be considered in matter of degree), has parallels to the four types of kamma; 1. kamma that is dark with dark result 2. kamma that is bright with bright result 3. kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result 4. kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result (kamma leading to the ending of kamma) That last one btw, is exemplified by the eightfold path, which in turn is tied to the precepts. In particular there seems to be a correlation between the fourth type of individual and the fourth type of kamma. I assume it's clear that the first three types of individuals are classed as being less than the ideal, with the fourth being put forward as the ideal. And so it is with the types of kamma. The first three being different qualities of kamma that still 'bind one' to samsara, and the fourth being the path to liberation. Ultimately coming only through abandonment [of sensual/sensory passion], ergo stimulation. If we consider the middle way [between the two extremes of asceticism and hedonism] - something you picked up on before is that the ascetic who rejects seats is an example that is skewed toward asceticism. It's less than ideal, and in fact is actually an attachment which accordingly results in the production of kamma. Now this is a hard one to qualify, but it's my contention that they ley western lifestyle is invariably skewed toward the other end of the spectrum with the same result. That is to say it lends itself too readily to the continued production of kamma, to the perpetuation of it. It is a positive rebirth though, supposedly the result of good kamma, and characterised by relatively long life and comfort. Previously I likened it to the realm of the demi-god in Buddhist cosmology. Anyway, I get the impression you equate the monastic lifestyle generally, as being unnecessarily skewed toward the ascetic. But done properly it isn't. It's simply a more auspicious situation to the cessation of the production of kamma, and by extension, the path to true liberation. Less stimulation. It's not so much about any judgment itself, but more about penetrating the nature of the subject matter and seeing what's conducive to success and what isn't. What's auspicious and what isn't. And applying that. No doubt the scope of kamma in its entirety, and certainly at the level of human experience, is unfathomably intricate and nuanced. Which is why 'the sphere of kamma fruition' is classified as [one of the four] impenetrables/ imponderables/ unconjecturables. But of course that doesn't mean it can't be known and interpreted in 'broader' strokes. In fact, [commonly] we do it all the time in daily lives, albeit not infallibly, but with a high degree of success. Essentially it's anticipation. It's how we make sense of the world, and in turn it colours our experience. In conventional terms it's the paradigm of causality, and it's about recognising patterns. [Again commonly] this anticipation happens quite naturally, both consciously and unconsciously. Some are better at it than others, and insight along with being conscious and being present are all most auspicious toward it. As an aside this can all be amplified resulting in some of the woo-experiences we've heard about, including forms of prophecy. The point is that on many levels these 'broad stroke patterning's (circumstance)' are for all intent and purpose universal, and therefore transferable. More importantly it's about what these patterns are all based on, what is their source, what enables, or gives rise to them. And that is Dhamma - you allude to it at the end there with your "one singular movement of mind standing outside all of that which is the epitome of this clarity". Actually, this is another area where I have a slightly different interpretation than the one Watts put forward, or rather an addition to it. He defined dhamma as 'the method' and undoubtedly there is that aspect to it. In fact, in Buddhism, dhamma is utilised both beginning with an upper and lowercase version. The lowercase version (dhamma) indeed refers to the teaching as formulated by the buddha, which Watts rightly says is dialectic. However the uppercase version (Dhamma) is the one I'm pointing to here. Obviously they're inextricably linked, different aspects. In relation to it, we might consider the two truths doctrine, which is something I personally subscribe to. Now whereas (t)ruth is contextual, conventional or mundane truth, (T)ruth IS Dhamma, or supramundane Truth. Truth is the basis of truth. So, Dhamma is a kind of timeless, boundless Truth that precedes or transcends language and culture, that is to say it is applicable everywhere and at all times. Moreover, it is the very basis of order, and essentially 'WE are no other than that', (which is why it's dialectic). It's also the basis of the pseudo perennial philosophy I mentioned the other day. In a sense Dhamma 'regulates' kamma.
The whole shebang is only ever a matter of becoming adept in this, and what that entails.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 24, 2020 8:51:06 GMT -5
I've become quite a big fan of Wattsy, and especially enjoyed going through the texts and video's you've been putting up on the thread. It's true I actually preferred the earlier 'non-buddhisty' stuff in the thread. I find his voice to be melodically hypnotic, he's incredibly insightful, and his ability to talk, and indeed to express himself generally is first rate. Quite marvellous. He comes up with some fantastic analogies to illustrate his points, some of them are really awesome. However, regarding his take on Buddhist doctrine, although some of it struck a chord, I found I actually didn't resonate with a large portion of it. Maybe due to a certain limitation in the insight behind it (fighting talk, I know), but if I'm honest, I also sensed his interpretation perhaps to be coloured by a need to justify his own lifestyle. At this point I'm also happy to agree to disagree on some of these issues, and am just pleased to be able to get into highlighting some of the discrepancies between the positions. At least the way I see it. I feel it can then be useful to have them in mind going forward. Personally I'm not particularly disposed toward Zen, and when I think of Buddhism, I usually have Theravada in mind. I've talked a little about that before. But to clarify, when I talk about interpretation, I tend to be talking about an interpretation of what the various source material really points to, (both 'compartmentally' and as a whole). Rather than what specific words were supposedly used in any given text. I mean obviously it's linked, and important to a degree, but the truth is, I put surprisingly little emphasis on that when reaching my conclusions. I guess what I mean is, a lot of it's down to the structure and the context of a given piece, but also the process I employ in order to glean the nature and scope of what's being pointed to. A process that is as broad as it is long, hehe. A pseudo-perennial philosophy. Yes, he has a great way of explaining things. And I think Watts is more a Taoist at heart, not a Buddhist. He does talk a lot about Zen though, and that's probably because Zen is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. But I think he's more leaning toward the Taoist roots of Zen. That's why his presentation of Buddhism may seem a bit too simplistic to some people. That sounds about right, and for the most part I don't have a problem with it. Like I say I'm a big fan.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2020 3:04:22 GMT -5
Well then, they're excluded from at least a part of it. I opine that this is a misapprehension of the ubiquitous nature of spiritual opportunity. That's not to take anything away from a monastic ideal, but that's one path, a different path, and no two paths are ever exactly the same, but all offer those same opportunities, which are always immediate, and for any seeker willing to open to them, constant. No doubt that's all true to a greater extent. It's just that for me, the lifestyle of the city dweller is inevitably subject to the continued production of kamma, whilst the true end of the pathless path comes only by way of the cessation of that. The ley western lifestyle doesn't really lend itself to this cessation. There's too much 'stimulation'.
It's a good piece you've linked to actually. Incidentally, those four types of individuals detailed in the article, (which you rightly said should best be considered in matter of degree), has parallels to the four types of kamma; 1. kamma that is dark with dark result 2. kamma that is bright with bright result 3. kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result 4. kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result (kamma leading to the ending of kamma) That last one btw, is exemplified by the eightfold path, which in turn is tied to the precepts. In particular there seems to be a correlation between the fourth type of individual and the fourth type of kamma. I assume it's clear that the first three types of individuals are classed as being less than the ideal, with the fourth being put forward as the ideal. And so it is with the types of kamma. The first three being different qualities of kamma that still 'bind one' to samsara, and the fourth being the path to liberation. Ultimately coming only through abandonment [of sensual/sensory passion], ergo stimulation. If we consider the middle way [between the two extremes of asceticism and hedonism] - something you picked up on before is that the ascetic who rejects seats is an example that is skewed toward asceticism. It's less than ideal, and in fact is actually an attachment which accordingly results in the production of kamma. Now this is a hard one to qualify, but it's my contention that they ley western lifestyle is invariably skewed toward the other end of the spectrum with the same result. That is to say it lends itself too readily to the continued production of kamma, to the perpetuation of it. It is a positive rebirth though, supposedly the result of good kamma, and characterised by relatively long life and comfort. Previously I likened it to the realm of the demi-god in Buddhist cosmology. Anyway, I get the impression you equate the monastic lifestyle generally, as being unnecessarily skewed toward the ascetic. But done properly it isn't. It's simply a more auspicious situation to the cessation of the production of kamma, and by extension, the path to true liberation. Less stimulation. It's not so much about any judgment itself, but more about penetrating the nature of the subject matter and seeing what's conducive to success and what isn't. What's auspicious and what isn't. And applying that. No doubt the scope of kamma in its entirety, and certainly at the level of human experience, is unfathomably intricate and nuanced. Which is why 'the sphere of kamma fruition' is classified as [one of the four] impenetrables/ imponderables/ unconjecturables. But of course that doesn't mean it can't be known and interpreted in 'broader' strokes. In fact, [commonly] we do it all the time in daily lives, albeit not infallibly, but with a high degree of success. Essentially it's anticipation. It's how we make sense of the world, and in turn it colours our experience. In conventional terms it's the paradigm of causality, and it's about recognising patterns. [Again commonly] this anticipation happens quite naturally, both consciously and unconsciously. Some are better at it than others, and insight along with being conscious and being present are all most auspicious toward it. As an aside this can all be amplified resulting in some of the woo-experiences we've heard about, including forms of prophecy. The point is that on many levels these 'broad stroke patterning's (circumstance)' are for all intent and purpose universal, and therefore transferable. More importantly it's about what these patterns are all based on, what is their source, what enables, or gives rise to them. And that is Dhamma - you allude to it at the end there with your "one singular movement of mind standing outside all of that which is the epitome of this clarity". Actually, this is another area where I have a slightly different interpretation than the one Watts put forward, or rather an addition to it. He defined dhamma as 'the method' and undoubtedly there is that aspect to it. In fact, in Buddhism, dhamma is utilised both beginning with an upper and lowercase version. The lowercase version (dhamma) indeed refers to the teaching as formulated by the buddha, which Watts rightly says is dialectic. However the uppercase version (Dhamma) is the one I'm pointing to here. Obviously they're inextricably linked, different aspects. In relation to it, we might consider the two truths doctrine, which is something I personally subscribe to. Now whereas (t)ruth is contextual, conventional or mundane truth, (T)ruth IS Dhamma, or supramundane Truth. Truth is the basis of truth. So, Dhamma is a kind of timeless, boundless Truth that precedes or transcends language and culture, that is to say it is applicable everywhere and at all times. Moreover, it is the very basis of order, and essentially 'WE are no other than that', (which is why it's dialectic). It's also the basis of the pseudo perennial philosophy I mentioned the other day. In a sense Dhamma 'regulates' kamma.
The whole shebang is only ever a matter of becoming adept in this, and what that entails.
Not unnecessarily skewed, no -- I have expressed an appreciation for the monastic life, one I can only really only imagine. No doubt the "Western" ley lifestyle can be characterized as at one end of an extreme, opposite to that of the aesthetic. One obvious difference between these two extremes is that the one who withdraws to a monastery has almost certainly considered and most likely even contemplated some of what you've written about here. In contrast, Oneness is mostly pursued on an unconscious level by people entranced with the material, but it is significant that it's pursued at all. Also, there is more than one way to withdraw: there is the question of the inner life of the individual. The individual has no control over their initial conditioning - when, where and to what circumstances they're born, and how they're acculturated to their surroundings and other people. This process of becoming conscious and altering one's responses to stimuli over time involves the appearance of control, always relative to that initial conditioning. Certainly, a physical move to a monastery has the potential to represent a discontinuous break with the past unconscious conditioning, but, that might not necessarily be the case: a devout Catholic family, for instance, might encourage and steer the conditioning of a young adult toward making the monastic choice, which is then just the result of more conditioning (a type of kamma). Conversely, a realization leading to this type of break need not spur such a move. The question of the creation of kamma which amplifies and leads to more kamma becomes much less clear and certain if the one who has realized is married with children. Niz's guru, for instance, told him to go home to his family, and ZD entitled one of his books about a particular insight into this matter. A family impoverished by the desertion of one of the parents is a clear creation of kamma that is negative by most human value systems in most instances. The fourth type of individual is certainly an ideal that I cannot deny - in terms of possibility. Although I must admit it describes a color I've yet to see. That said, can't you discern the opportunity that an active lifestyle offer's for insight into this cessation? It's the flip side to the one offered by withdrawal of the stimulation. Another subtopic relevant here is the Western stoic tradition, that deals directly with this very question. This isn't to maintain that actions won't change, but rather, the details of that change might not be so simple or clear cut, especially when the context of circumstance is considered. Finally, can you discern the underlying commonality between your interest in the production of kamma with gopal's interest in how reality is created, or invalan's interest in the purpose of living? Can you discern the commonality, in turn, between each of these interests and what Ramana Maharshi had to say?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2020 3:18:06 GMT -5
Strikes me that this has spiritual power when the notion of and question of virtue is directed inward. We all have the capacity to intuit what's pointed to there, and we all have the opportunity to get self-honest about whatever conditioning we're responding to and operating within and whether or not we're conscious of that as it's happening. It's a good piece you've linked to actually. Incidentally, those four types of individuals detailed in the article, (which you rightly said should best be considered in matter of degree), has parallels to the four types of kamma; 1. kamma that is dark with dark result 2. kamma that is bright with bright result 3. kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result 4. kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result (kamma leading to the ending of kamma) That last one btw, is exemplified by the eightfold path, which in turn is tied to the precepts. In particular there seems to be a correlation between the fourth type of individual and the fourth type of kamma. This confuses me to some degree. Do you mean to equate dark kamma with self-torture and bright kamma with the torture of other's? My intuition would be to associate bright kamma with actions that are positive with respect to a set of human values, and dark kamma with actions that are negative in that regard. The correlation between the 4th type of kamma with the 4th type of individual is quite clear. But, my intuition would have it that any given action can be either harmful or constructive, with the effect directed either inward or outward. Furthermore, it seems to me that most actions are rarely simply categorizable in these terms, in pratice, but rather, will consist of a mix of effect. One facet of this is illustrated by the story .. "is that so?". The source I've linked to attributes it as Taoist, but I've also seen sources that attribute it to Zen.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 29, 2020 14:47:10 GMT -5
No doubt that's all true to a greater extent. ... Not unnecessarily skewed, no -- I have expressed an appreciation for the monastic life, one I can only really only imagine. No doubt the "Western" ley lifestyle can be characterized as at one end of an extreme, opposite to that of the aesthetic. ... I guess you meant "lay" (laic), and "ascetic" ... (?)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 29, 2020 17:03:51 GMT -5
Not unnecessarily skewed, no -- I have expressed an appreciation for the monastic life, one I can only really only imagine. No doubt the "Western" ley lifestyle can be characterized as at one end of an extreme, opposite to that of the aesthetic. One obvious difference between these two extremes is that the one who withdraws to a monastery has almost certainly considered and most likely even contemplated some of what you've written about here. In contrast, Oneness is mostly pursued on an unconscious level by people entranced with the material, but it is significant that it's pursued at all. Just to clarify, I wouldn't say the average ley western lifestyle is at the extreme end of the spectrum toward hedonism, obviously some greater and some lesser, but the majority perhaps merely - off centre in that direction, if that makes any sense. Well, we see this one quite differently, because as I've talked quite a lot about previously, I see kamma as going hand in hand with rebirth, and I envisage all this as part of a process that transcends lifetimes. For me, the individuals current experience/ circumstance is [at least to some degree] coloured by previous action in both the current and previous lifetimes. That action being subject to volition. Most likely we see volition differently too, but for me the apparent individuation both had and has, a measure of control which shapes their circumstance. Arguably the more insightful, conscious, and present one is being, the greater the measure of control. I tend to avoid the phrase 'free-will', likely for some of the reasons to which you allude. Agreed.
This is an interesting scenario you raise. I once read that the buddha upped and left his family weeping on the floor, but not impoverished, such was their circumstance. Of course, the seeing out of ones commitments and responsibilities is considered noble, (and presumably also before embarking on such a path as the monastic). Such a situation would be considered as resulting in the production of good kamma, as is the lifestyle of the virtuous householder in general. And a good kamma situation is considered prerequisite for the path to the end of kamma. Realistically most should only be concerned with generating positive kamma leading to favourable rebirth. Perhaps one where such considerations aren't a factor and conditions are more conducive toward true and final liberation.
Yes, absolutely. Rather than the flipside, I'd suggest that insight is prerequisite.
Alas, I have to confess to being not so well versed in what those guys have said on this or related topics, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't commonalities. I'd be interested to hear about any specific parallels you see.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 29, 2020 17:21:00 GMT -5
It's a good piece you've linked to actually. Incidentally, those four types of individuals detailed in the article, (which you rightly said should best be considered in matter of degree), has parallels to the four types of kamma; 1. kamma that is dark with dark result 2. kamma that is bright with bright result 3. kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result 4. kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result (kamma leading to the ending of kamma) That last one btw, is exemplified by the eightfold path, which in turn is tied to the precepts. In particular there seems to be a correlation between the fourth type of individual and the fourth type of kamma. This confuses me to some degree. Do you mean to equate dark kamma with self-torture and bright kamma with the torture of other's? Sorry, no I didn't mean to imply quite as direct a correlation between the first three types of kamma and types of individuals. I would equate dark kamma with self-torture, but wouldn't equate bright kamma with the torture of other's. Both would be an example of action resulting in dark, (or bad) kamma. Yes, something like that, although such a set of human values would need to be in-line with the Dhamma I talked about before. Sure. Importantly, intent seems to be the key factor. Speaking generally the types of kamma produced are distinguished by the roots of the actions. So, the mental qualities which motivate an action determine the moral quality of the action, and accordingly the type of kamma produced. What is one's motivating force when one helps the sick? … genuine loving kindness and compassion, or to get your hands on aunties money. Maybe elements of both ... It is worth noting that the types of kamma can, and perhaps even most often do, overlap in overall experience. I've seen it put, that a given experience can consist of a number of 'units' of kamma, or that a person’s life is governed by the active units of kammic energy, and changes in these explain the changes in the person’s life. I'm not so keen on conceiving of it like that as it starts to get a little too compartmental. As I mentioned before, [at the level of human experience in particular], no doubt kamma result can be exceedingly intricate and nuanced, and dwelling on that is deemed counterproductive, at best.
Yet, there are 'markers', and we can, and perhaps ideally should consider it in these broader strokes. The nature of kamma, certainly it's causes, and really it's [broad] effect, should be known. So it's about striking a balance. With that in mind, those formulas (the types) only serve as a basis for the dialectics of the situation. The subject is particularly challenging, (I personally believe understanding even in the buddhist community is very limited) but for me, it's quite an interesting subject. What does it point to, what is the nature, and the mechanics of it. To what degree does it colour, and perhaps even underpin, mundane experience etc.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2020 3:18:56 GMT -5
Not unnecessarily skewed, no -- I have expressed an appreciation for the monastic life, one I can only really only imagine. No doubt the "Western" ley lifestyle can be characterized as at one end of an extreme, opposite to that of the aesthetic. ... I guess you meant "lay" (laic), and " ascetic" ... (?) Yes, thanks. I was following ouroboros' use of 'ley'.
|
|