"An example: someone speaks harsh words to us. In the ultimate sense
there is not he who speaks, there is not me who hears. Hearing is
vipaakacitta conditioned by past kamma. It was the right time for
kamma to produce result. How could another person be blamed? The real
cause of trouble is not another person, it is by 'myself'. Right
understanding of naama and ruupa conditions most of all kind speech,
restraint from harsh speech."

We have a funny situation there.

1. no he; no me (in bold letters above)
2. vipaka citta exists (Hearing is vipaaka citta). Where?
3. Past kamma of whom? (no he, no me.)

The explanation seems to create more questions than answers.;



 D. G. D. C. Wijeratna




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]