tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post4536358091347342102..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Karman in Jainismelisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-83001332982790772112010-11-02T09:56:52.130+01:002010-11-02T09:56:52.130+01:00What I meant is just that "Buddhists" de...What I meant is just that "Buddhists" deny any reality to the opposition subject/object and claim, instead, that the only reality is that of the event. For instance, there is no perceived entity, nor a perceiver, the only existing thing is the act of perception, upon which the aspect (ākāra) of perceiver and perceived are superimposed.<br />Now the problem is: who are these "Buddhists"? Surely Pramāṇavāda and Yogācāra authors, but perhaps also earlier ones. The Abhidharma philosophy (as found in the AKBh, at least) also seems to stress the momentary event over and above the illusory perdurance of substances. <br />As for the verse you quote, I would read it as pointing to the *contents* of sensation, and not to material objects which necessarily exist externally and independently.<br />What do you think?<br /><br />(the link to your blog does not seem to be working, at least it does not work for me. If anyone else is interested, I guess the link should be:<br />http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2009/09/ethics-and-intention.html<br />).elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-87684003524815016822010-11-01T23:02:31.554+01:002010-11-01T23:02:31.554+01:00Hi Elisa
Thanks for directing me to this post. Yo...Hi Elisa<br /><br />Thanks for directing me to this post. You say "and in the Buddhist ones, since karman was considered to be the only reality". I am puzzled by what this could mean! <br /><br />Certainly early Buddhism has no concept that we could translate as 'reality' so far as I know. Or none that I would translate as 'reality', shall we say. In one place the only domain (visaya) is described as the sense faculties and their objects (Sabba Sutta, SN 35.23; though cf SN 35.92,93). We Buddhists argue over whether this means the only domain you need; or the only possible domain. I think the former is consistent with the context; and the latter is not.<br /><br />We might say that 'action' karma in early Buddhism means any action that results in a longer stay in saṃsāra. As we are discussing on <a href="and%20in%20the%20Buddhist%20ones,%20since%20karman%20was%20considered%20to%20be%20the%20only%20reality" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>, this is determined by the mental state behind the action (cetanā).Jayaravahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815277098386812048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-2902079405061263662010-05-14T22:19:31.640+02:002010-05-14T22:19:31.640+02:00Karman means action, right. But what does "ac...Karman means action, right. But what does "action" mean? Its meaning is not fix even in Western thought. In India, Vaiśeṣikas think that karman is "movement", no matter whether performed by a conscious or unconscious agent (a person or a ball). Mīmāṃsakas such as Kumārila propose that it means "production [of a certain result]", and hence do not include as karman a sheer movement. For instance, braking is a karman, but not the single movements of stretching one's leg, pushing a pedal, etc. Later Mīmāṃsakas (and many Buddhists) propose as karman only its inner aspect, the initiation of the action.<br />The Wu-wei sounds interesting, but I am even less an expert about Taoism. Could you explain further?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-55690103640974840872010-05-14T16:40:50.953+02:002010-05-14T16:40:50.953+02:00This seems to be confusing. Doesn't 'karma...This seems to be confusing. Doesn't 'karman' action? Any human being has to perform 'action'. How can somebody say that certain acts are action, while some acts are not action?<br /><br />As per my understanding, perhaps the principle is somewhat similar to the 'Wu-wei' concept.VShttp://freshvisionquest.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com