Jeff

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. No worries on Dwai, I was also just using his name as a generic (sorry Dwai). And yes, I am sort of a nitty-gritty kind of guy... One of my failings, I am infinitely curious... More love

I assume that you are responding to my earlier post with your responses... So I am connecting them to make sure and for some follow up. How could what you call the "witness state" be realized/constantly present if old subconscious issues keep popping up? 1) Witnessing is not controlling. What you see, you see through the jiva. It’s said - but it’s hard to grasp - that the Self is not an experiencer. Don't see how your response answers my question. Are you saying the Self is forcing Dwai to have these responses? Kind of like he has no control of anything and is just watching his stuff come up? Doesn't that sort of prove that there is a lot of stuff still going on that you are not yet aware of? 2) Yes, if by ”you” you mean the jiva. Vedanta speaks of uphadis and it will help you understand the Self to an extent. So you are saying the Jiva is in control of Dwai. And Jiva wants to just have these issues and fears manifest? Sort of like there is stuff deeper than your capability to witness? 3) Yes and no. You confuse the Self with the jiva. This again goes back to the truth of non duality. There is no spoon. I take it that this is a continuation of you point that Jiva is doing it all... Wouldn't also the fact that just being aware of them and their not dissolving also point to the fact that you are sort of only seeing the tip of the iceberg? 4) Absolutely not. And your question doesn’t make sense Why not? Is that basically because there really is no person in the first place so nothing ever deeper to notice or perceive? That you are not fully aware of the issue parts that are deeper than your conscious mind has noticed? 5) We walk in circles. Don't quite get your response here. Unless you just meant to reiterate the earlier points. Thanks for the discussion.

Are those habits/tendencies not some type of stored automated (ego) response to some type of worry? Or some type of fear based upon some concern?

I do not claim to be awakened, but maybe a few questions to add to your thread... How could what you call the "witness state" be realized/constantly present if old subconscious issues keep popping up? Doesn't that sort of prove that there is a lot of stuff still going on that you are not yet aware of? Sort of like there is stuff deeper than your capability to witness? Wouldn't also the fact that just being aware of them and their not dissolving also point to the fact that you are sort of only seeing the tip of the iceberg? That you are not fully aware of the issue parts that are deeper than your conscious mind has noticed? Thanks.

The effect is being driven by your going "deeper into consciousness" with your mind stilling as you pray. In your case, it is actually a positive sign of your meditative prayer.

In the context of my post, I meant it as "bad" as shorthand relative to not following the correct dharma by killing something. Since there are "rules" that one is supposed to follow in Buddhism, violating the rules was seen as "bad" by the other monks, so they reported him to Buddha. Also, a few words from Buddha on the counter point. From the dhammapada... Whoever follows impure thoughts Suffers in this world and the next. In both worlds he suffers And how greatly When he sees the wrong he has done. But whoever follows the dharma Is joyful here and joyful there. In both worlds he rejoices And how greatly When he sees the good he has done. For great is the harvest in this world, And greater still in the next.

Thanks. Then I assume that you also disagree with the Dhammapada quote I posted earlier? That the blind man did actually create some bad karma by stepping on the ants?

To me what we are discussing is the nature of karma and how it relates or is dependent upon intent. My point is that there can be acts that do not create karma, because there is no attachment/aversion/fear/issues embedded in the intent. Such an act is done as described by the TTC verse (primal virtue) and also the nature of an arhat. It is not the act itself, but all of the "junk" attached to it that creates or drives the karma. Or, a Buddha (or immortal type) is beyond/transcends karma and can still "act".

So in your view, no possible escape, just building up a big piggy bank (of good karma) for the tough times? Then what do you define enlightenment as?

So no theoretical possibility of a karma-less act? A sage, immortal, or buddha realizing the "empty nature" or "primal virtue" of karma and hence not bound by it?

Is that because all action (no matter what) has karma? Or could a buddha create a karma-less act? Also, what about my dhammapada quote earlier? Does that not say "no intent to kill", so no problem? Similar to my TTC 68 verse?

Guess we may just disagree. From the TTC... SIXTY-EIGHT A good soldier is not violent. A good fighter is not angry. A good winner is not vengeful. A good employer is humble. This is known as the Virtue of not striving. This is known as the ability to deal with people. This since ancient times has been known as the ultimate unity with heaven. It is the "intent" (desires, fears) that screws up that not striving and going with the Dao.

If he was already a jeevanamukta then why would he care about winning the debate or not having sex in his own body?

Interesting concept. So then following your logic... A bird that eats a bug creates karma for itself in the act? Or, a flower that grows tall in the sun and blocks the light so it kills a smaller plant also create karma?

The physical act in both cases was the same kicking of the dog. One on purpose and the other accidentally. As stated earlier (which you seem to agree with) is that the karma difference is based upon the intent behind the act. A little more from the Buddha on how intent behind the act is what counts. From the Dhammapada 1st verse... The Story of Thera Cakkhupala While residing at the Jetavana monastery in Savatthi, the Buddha uttered Verse (1) of this book, with reference to Cakkhupala, a blind thera. On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects. When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001

If you believe that, then how about this as example... If you come home from work and accidentally trip over your dog and hurt it, is there karma attached to it? As compared to coming home from work mad and purposely kick your dog and hurt it? Either way the act is the same, are you saying that the karma is the same...

So when a tiger kills a deer to eat, it creates karma? Is that not just the natural flow of the Dao and hence no karma.

Not quite sure what you are saying that I said is inaccurate? My point is that the "intent" drives the karma, not the act itself. As an example, if you kill someone, your karma is determined by the intent behind the killing. Hence, the karma of killing as a soldier in self defense in a war is different than the karma from murdering someone in a rage. But, in both cases there was an "act of killing" and someone is dead.

No evidence of possession? Or specifically animating a dead body?

In Pali, karma does means action, but in many other traditions, karma is driven by intent that leads to the action. As buddha stated... The Nibbedhika Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 6.63: Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. The act itself does not create the karma, it is the intention (or desire/fear/attachment) behind the act that creates and drives the karma.

Never really understood that story, Karma is about intent.

Wouldn't that be exactly what all translators say that they are doing?

Or that all hospitals are the same thing. Such concepts of "distance" are all an illusion of time and space.

Well said.

Yes. Like I said above, I would agree that the concept works with the phrase.