tiltbillings wrote: nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Kamma is "entirely visible in the here-and-now?" Not according to the Buddha (A ii 80 ).
"The results of kamma are inconceivable..."? That quote? Is there no difference in your mind between conception and visibility? I am saying that the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now, not that the intricacies of their working are obvious to everyone who acts.
You were less than clear as to what you meant, and now you are less than clear as to what you mean. You are the one that said "entirely visible
in the here-and-now," but now you are saying that all that mean is that "the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now." So, "the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now" means "entirely visible
in the here-and-now" What are you talking about here?
The results are visible -- generally speaking they are felt more than seen -- but that doesn't not mean they are recognized for what they are. But then, I suppose when I said "visible in the here-and-now" I was using what you would call "metaphors" whereas I would say I was just speaking the way people do. I have heard it argued, with good reason, that all language is, at base, metaphorical.
This does not help.
With your tendency toward reading things literally, I am not surprised that you took it the way you did.
Now you are blaming me for not understanding your less entirely visible
Who said anything about blame? Oh wait.. you did.
I see communication between two people as a process. All we can do is our best. I should have recognized that someone who is talking about reading texts literally could take my wording the way you did. If you feel like placing blame, you can blame me, and I will accept full responsibility.
I will try to state what I was saying, in order to avoid secondary and tertiary levels of discussion of the language I did use and how we misunderstood each other.
So when I said:
What's being described is, to my way of thinking, a phenomenon that is entirely visible in the here-and-now. It is a phenomenon that drives something other than literal rebirth so I guess, while still trying to fit within the category I'd be assigned to, I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself.
I was saying that kamma can be understood without rebirth to be discussing kamma that is, from a theoretical God's perspective, the effects of actions that the perpetrators of those actions experience, that are generally described as kamma or the results of kamma, that are entirely visible (to the theoretical God) during those perps' same lifetimes.
nowheat wrote:I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself
tiltbillings wrote:One does not have to tie kamma to rebirth to make the point.
nowheat wrote:We agree that kamma does not have to tie to rebirth to make a point.
And you do not address the point.
I haven't? I thought I had. Apparently I failed to understand your point.