Re: Nina's comments on my paper

Dear Nina,

You wrote:

> Thank you for the file. I am with you that kusala is kusala and akusala
> is akusala and that these are absolute values. One cannot change kusala
> into akusala and they arise at different moments. They each have their
> own characteristic and even if we change their names, their
> characteristics are unalterable.

> It would help Collins to realize that there are so many different cittas
> each arising because of their own conditions. Abhidhamma can help us to
> have a deeper understanding of realities, including kamma and vipaaka. It
> is not theory but pertains to our life now. Then one can begin to know
> that what seems one moment of kusala that lasts is in fact many different
> moments, arising and falling away extremely rapidly. For instance what
> seems a lasting moment of metta may be moments of metta and selfish
> affection alternating so fast.

Anyone who has been trained in Abhidhammic studies would tend to agree with
me. I know that. However, I have chosen not to refer to Abhidhamma in my
paper on account of two reasons:

(1) An ordinary Buddhist should be able to understand and practice the
Buddhist morality without delving into the Abhidhammic psychology.

(2) I don't want to get into the nightmare of a historical controversy over
the authenticity of Abhidhamma as part of the Buddha's teaching.

> Kamma is cetanaa cetasika, and it is kusala citta with kusala cetanaa
> that counts. Not the outward appearance of deeds.

You are absolutely right. If we just look at the outward appearance of
deeds, we will find it difficult to appreciate Vessantara's sacrifice of
his children as slaves.

with metta,

Ven. Pandita


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