All intending is acted out, to intend is an action, aĺl action is perceived by the one who inacts as it is brought into being through attention...
It's not easy to understand this stuff but it's what the texts explain.
All intending is acted out, to intend is an action, aĺl action is perceived by the one who inacts as it is brought into being through attention...
Is this a peculiarity of the Sinhalese dialect of English? Ven Nanananda writes it like that, and it sounds odd in the English dialects I'm familiar with, unless the speaker was speaking while pointing at "this" and "this"... Admittedly, "this" tends to be used for objects that are close and "that" for objects further away, so perhaps that's his reasoning...
It's what the teacher taught...Are we therefore obliged to understand in-&-out-breaths, thinking-&-pondering, and perception and feeling, respectively, as bodily, verbal, and mental kamma (or cetanā)?
Would be difficult to exist if one wasn't breathing, both formerly & nowIs my present existence the result of my breathing in the preceding existence?
Yes these are actions, it should be obvious because these can be taken as verbs and therefore actions. Verbal because having made them one breaks into speech.Is thinking-&-pondering verbal action?
Sutta distinguish in delineating a difference but having delineated a difference these are not separated because these things are conjoined.Must we regard perception and feeling as intention, when the Suttas distinguish between them
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
Mn43
That's an incorrect and misleading statement. He purposely relies solely on the suttas in his writings.
Ven. Nanavira wrote:These books of the Pali Canon correctly represent the Buddha's Teaching, and can be regarded as trustworthy throughout. (Vinayapitaka:) Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga; (Suttapitaka:) Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā. (The Jātaka verses may be authentic, but they do not come within the scope of these Notes.) No other Pali books whatsoever should be taken as authoritative; and ignorance of them (and particularly of the traditional Commentaries) may be counted a positive advantage, as leaving less to be unlearned.
Incorrect only if you assume that he understood the texts he was studying. I've no reason to think so. You can study him but his texts aren't authoritative here.Sasha_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:11 pmThat's an incorrect and misleading statement. He purposely relies solely on the suttas in his writings.Ven. Nanavira wrote:These books of the Pali Canon correctly represent the Buddha's Teaching, and can be regarded as trustworthy throughout. (Vinayapitaka:) Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga; (Suttapitaka:) Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā. (The Jātaka verses may be authentic, but they do not come within the scope of these Notes.) No other Pali books whatsoever should be taken as authoritative; and ignorance of them (and particularly of the traditional Commentaries) may be counted a positive advantage, as leaving less to be unlearned.
these stories are added by translators. Unless you mean Jataka stories, i don't know about them.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:20 am (I would actively discourage taking your understanding of kamma from commentarial stories, which present a very puerile take on kamma).
I'm not sure what stories you're referring to, but I had the Jataka stories and Dhammapada stories in mind.auto wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:06 pmthese stories are added by translators. Unless you mean Jataka stories, i don't know about them.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:20 am (I would actively discourage taking your understanding of kamma from commentarial stories, which present a very puerile take on kamma).
If by traditional he means being inferable from the sutta then yes, it's very traditional.
To fabricate is an act [kamma] and kamma is intention because intending one acts.“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them fabrications? ‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
And what is the conditioned that they fabrications?
They fabricate conditioned form as form;
they fabricate conditioned feeling as feeling;
they fabricate conditioned perception as perception;
they fabricate conditioned fabrications as fabrications;
they fabricate conditioned consciousness as consciousness.
‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
SN 22.79
What one obsesses about that one arranges [plans], what one plans one intends;The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Thus because of an obsession of ignorance intention comes into play and with intention as a requisite condition there is an landing[establishment] of vinnana.What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
All of these things are acted out, willed & intended, therefore yes. For example in-&-out-breaths are bodily fabrications, fabrication is kamma [an act], kamma is intention because intending one acts and to intend is also an act.
To an extent it is in the same way that one's breathing yesterday is a requisite for breathing today. Breathing was a requisite condition for the upholding of life force, it is certainly something that came into play. However is breathing the root cause of all existence? We do not say that.
According to the sutta there is two elements the conditioned and the unconditioned.Sasha_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:09 amNV wrote:Must we regard perception and feeling as intention, when the Suttas distinguish between them[Salāyatana Samy. ix,10 <S.iv,68>] (SN35.93))?Phuttho bhikkhave vedeti, phuttho ceteti, phuttho sañjānāti...
'Contacted, monks, one feels; contacted, one intends; contacted, one perceives;...'
Anyway i apologize for saying he is delusional. I know many people think he is the best thing since the 1st Council but to me it looks like he didn't understand these things very well.User13866 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:20 pm As far as i can tell he was simply a delusional monk.
Nanaviraism is a very small sect within Theravada... The vast majority of people don't approve of his interpretations.
Of course he might not have been wrong about everything but he was wrong about this stuff and therefore also about essentials in general, as i see it of course.
I understand kamma as "intentional acting" and sankhara as "intentional making" or "intentional making up".
But have your read his work?
A reasonable argument can be made that the sankharas of MN44 and that of dependent origination are two different kinds.Sasha_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 7:11 amBut have your read his work?
The quote that I posted here was just to give you a hint on the presence of inconsistency in the approach of equating sankhara to kamma.
Can you give an example of a wholesome and unwholesome action by one's perceptions and feelings, breathig, and by thinking and pondering?
From "A LETTER ON SANKHĀRA" by Sāmanera Bodhesako:
Sāmanera Bodhesako wrote:Note also that you are too restrictive in limiting the M. 44 triad to nirodha-samāpatti[28]. The description is relevant also in particular to 2nd and 4th jhānas, in general to meditation, and sometimes even to non-meditative contexts — e.g. M. 117 (iii,73), and also M. 103 (ii,242), where we find vacī-sankhāra[29], quite evidently meaning vitakkavicārā[30], and where what is sankhata, namely vacī[31], is called a dhamma in opposition to the sankhāra. And in M. 43 (i,296) we find the same 3 sankhāras used in a strictly non-meditative sense (i.e. with regard to a corpse). If they can be used in as general a sense as this then there is no justification for asserting that the 3 paticcasamuppāda sankhārā are “a different set with the same name”. Also note that in M. 43 (āyu-) sankhārā[32] are distinguished from (vedaniyā) dhammā[33], and that the distinction made — specifically with reference to nirodha-samāpatti — supports precisely the view of sankhārā as “conditions”.
I have only read a little.Sasha_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 7:11 amBut have your read his work?
The quote that I posted here was just to give you a hint on the presence of inconsistency in the approach of equating sankhara to kamma.
Can you give an example of a wholesome and unwholesome action by one's perceptions and feelings, breathig, and by thinking and pondering?
It's not a question of whether i can explain it. It's a question of whether i can explain it in a way that you can comprehend. I don't think that i can do so.Can you give an example of a wholesome and unwholesome action by one's perceptions and feelings, breathig, and by thinking and pondering?
Look here
Fabricated [sankhatam], willed [cetayitam], felt [vedaniyam]"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.
"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html