What or who receives kamma's results?

[nrose619]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

[daverupa]

The question reminded me of another question:

Then, in the mind of a certain bhikkhu this thought arose: “So, it seems, material form is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self, consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?”

(alternative translation)

[SDC]

Looking for a "what" is just the same as if you were to say that a self receives the results. Although you have removed the idea of self, the mind continues to force some concept to be the receiver. Why? Because logic says there is supposed to be an answer to that question.

The way I understand it, the results will come about in experience. Who's experience? What's experience? Going that extra step to look for that answer will only lead to confusion. There is experience and the results of kamma come about in that experience.

Just the way I see it. Hope this helps.

[nibbuti]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.'

'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences' amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.'

Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[SarathW]

Please read attahed: Chapter 18 to 21

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf

[nrose619]

"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]

yes, but what is "who" if "self" is an illusion?

[nrose619]

Looking for a "what" is just the same as if you were to say that a self receives the results. Although you have removed the idea of self, the mind continues to force some concept to be the receiver. Why? Because logic says there is supposed to be an answer to that question.

The way I understand it, the results will come about in experience. Who's experience? What's experience? Going that extra step to look for that answer will only lead to confusion. There is experience and the results of kamma come about in that experience.

Just the way I see it. Hope this helps.

[nibbuti]

what is "who" if "self" is an illusion?

The question "what is 'who'" is not valid since no 'somebody' was mentioned before (just a who-statement that the Buddha rejected, providing an alternative).

Please read the link above carefully friend.

[nrose619]

what is "who" if "self" is an illusion?

The question "what is 'who'" is not valid since no 'somebody' was mentioned before (just a who-statement that the Buddha rejected, providing an alternative).

Please read the link above carefully friend.

Read it wrong. My apologies

[pulga]

The experience of the relationship between kamma and vipaka is founded upon and derived from phassa, a description of which itself is derived upon phassa (cf. MN18. ‘‘So vatāvuso, cakkhusmim sati rūpe sati cakkhuviññāne sati phassapaññattim paññāpessatīti – thānametam vijjati. .... So vatāvuso, cakkhusmim asati rūpe asati cakkhuviññāne asati phassapaññattim paññāpessatīti – netam thānam vijjati.") The first-person perspective is prior to and an aspect (i.e. a part) of any third-person description of phenomena. In its simpliest form it is merely the bodily presence of the phenomena, but once the mind -- the patisarana of the other faculties (cf. MN43) -- comes into play, consolidating what is bodily present into a single, particular lived moment, a proliferation of images -- most of which are in the background of experience and unattended to -- comes to determine (sankharoti) -- to define -- our present situation in all its complexity. But note that while our presence in samsara is contigent upon phassa, samsara itself is the result of our appropriating the first-person perspective: our presence in the world makes "sense", but it is derivative, a transcedency contigent upon what is more primitive. (We cannot experience a cube without looking at one of its sides.)

[SDC]

The experience of the relationship between kamma and vipaka is founded upon and derived from phassa, a description of which itself is derived upon phassa (cf. MN18. ‘‘So vatāvuso, cakkhusmim sati rūpe sati cakkhuviññāne sati phassapaññattim paññāpessatīti – thānametam vijjati. .... So vatāvuso, cakkhusmim asati rūpe asati cakkhuviññāne asati phassapaññattim paññāpessatīti – netam thānam vijjati.") The first-person perspective is prior to and an aspect (i.e. a part) of any third-person description of phenomena. In its simpliest form it is merely the bodily presence of the phenomena, but once the mind -- the patisarana of the other faculties (cf. MN43) -- comes into play, consolidating what is bodily present into a single, particular lived moment, a proliferation of images -- most of which are in the background of experience and unattended to -- comes to determine (sankharoti) -- to define -- our present situation in all its complexity. But note that while our presence in samsara is contigent upon phassa, samsara itself is the result of our appropriating the first-person perspective: our presence in the world makes "sense", but it is derivative, a transcedency contigent upon what is more primitive. (We cannot experience a cube without looking at one of its sides.)

Excellent post, pulga, especially the last few sentences.

[LonesomeYogurt]

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ebirth.pdf

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's article "Anatta and Rebirth" might help explain some things.

[ground]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

Consciousnesses do arise in the context of self (consciousness "I", consciousness "me", consciousness "mine").That isn't an illusion isn't it? So consciousnesses may reap what they have sown

[Bakmoon]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

I think that there is some confusion here about what the teaching of Anatta actually means. A lot of people think it means "I don't exist" but that's not quite right. It means something more along the lines of "My identity is only a concept, and not part of ultimate reality." The things that make a person up are real, but they are all impermanent and arise and cease, just like everything else in this conditioned world. There is no underlying "core" to a person that remains unchanged.

The impermanent things that make up a person behave in a certain way, and it is possible to describe the whole process as a person, but this is just a concept in the mind, whereas all of the pieces that make up the person are part of ultimate reality and are not just concepts. This is the meaning of the teaching of Anatta.

[nrose619]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

I think that there is some confusion here about what the teaching of Anatta actually means. A lot of people think it means "I don't exist" but that's not quite right. It means something more along the lines of "My identity is only a concept, and not part of ultimate reality." The things that make a person up are real, but they are all impermanent and arise and cease, just like everything else in this conditioned world. There is no underlying "core" to a person that remains unchanged.

There's no confusion about the teachings of Anatta.. I know we exist but identity is an illusion, this is the ultimate reality. It's just the way kamma is sometimes described makes me confused. for example "what you do happens to you" well what "you" is that quote referring to? because "you" is saying there is a special identity and separateness. Unless its speaking in relativist terms as a way of teaching..

[nrose619]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

Consciousnesses do arise in the context of self (consciousness "I", consciousness "me", consciousness "mine").That isn't an illusion isn't it? So consciousnesses may reap what they have sown

Didn't the Buddha say the opposite? "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self." The consciousness isn't an illusion but it's phrasing is. There can be awareness without the use of me, I, or mine.

[Bakmoon]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

I think that there is some confusion here about what the teaching of Anatta actually means. A lot of people think it means "I don't exist" but that's not quite right. It means something more along the lines of "My identity is only a concept, and not part of ultimate reality." The things that make a person up are real, but they are all impermanent and arise and cease, just like everything else in this conditioned world. There is no underlying "core" to a person that remains unchanged.

There's no confusion about the teachings of Anatta.. I know we exist but identity is an illusion, this is the ultimate reality. It's just the way kamma is sometimes described makes me confused. for example "what you do happens to you" well what "you" is that quote referring to? because "you" is saying there is a special identity and separateness. Unless its speaking in relativist terms as a way of teaching..

The word "You" is being used in a purely conventional sense, and not in an ultimate sense. We need to use conventional terms in speech because there are only four things that are part of ultimate reality, and they are: Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana. If we didn't use conventional terms, it would be impossibly complicated to describe anything in terms of these parts of ultimate reality, so we use conventional terms such as person, me, you, etc... in order to convey information.

[nrose619]

The word "You" is being used in a purely conventional sense, and not in an ultimate sense. We need to use conventional terms in speech because there are only four things that are part of ultimate reality, and they are: Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana. If we didn't use conventional terms, it would be impossibly complicated to describe anything in terms of these parts of ultimate reality, so we use conventional terms such as person, me, you, etc... in order to convey information.

got it , so I guess kamma should be looked at as a combination of a source and actions coming back to that source. Kinda like when you drop a stone in the pond, the stone does not have a special identity but receives the actions of kamma because the results of the action come back to the place the action was initiated.

[ground]

If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?

all the best,
-Nick

Consciousnesses do arise in the context of self (consciousness "I", consciousness "me", consciousness "mine").That isn't an illusion isn't it? So consciousnesses may reap what they have sown

Didn't the Buddha say the opposite? "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self."

The consciousnesses "I", "me", "mine" are not said to be "yours". But they still arise and that isn't an illusion. So what besides these conciousnesses, i.e. their perpetuated manifestations, may reap what they have sown by means of affirmative thinking, feeling, perceiving?

The consciousness isn't an illusion but it's phrasing is.

The phrasing is the consciousness.

There can be awareness without the use of me, I, or mine.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Explicit thoughts "I" or "mine" are not decisive but the concomitant sense is.