Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Clueless Git wrote:

Sanghamitta wrote:Its generally accepted within most schools of Buddhism Clueless Git that the Buddha's understanding of kamma and vipaka and of the Dhamma in general arose from his Enlightenment, That at the moment of his Enlightenment he rediscovered the Dhamma that had been taught by all of the previous Buddhas. Describing what he discovered as musings is problematic in that he makes it plain that what he saw to be the case was not as a result of discursive thought, but rather the arising of deep insight into the nature of things beyond all discursive thought.

I would not wish to get into an argument over that most estimable lady

Do you think it is mere coincidence though that the evolutionary/biological factors I mentioned happen to support what the buddha taught as a result of his own insight?

To be clear my personal interest is limited to the notion that non-buddhism based factors that support buddhist teachings are valuable as external verifications.

That might be Clueless Git. For myself I am still after many years unpacking what The Buddha said and taught about kamma and vipaka , if I ever reach the end of that unpacking and if there is any of my lifetime left over then I might take a peek at what non Buddhist verification supports that. In the mean time its the fact that we live in an era that produced a Buddha whose teachings are still accessable which drives my own search for his meaning, that and the fact of dukkha, a teaching that imo needs no external verification apart from the experience our everyday lives. But clearly there are a number of approaches to Dhamma.

Dugu wrote:Clueless Git, you gave a interesting take on Karma there. I like it.

Thank you for those kind words Dugu

The principle of Dependent Origination shows the interdependence and interrelation of all things in the form of a continuum. As a continuum, it can be analyzed from a number of different perspectives:

In essence, this general principle corresponds to what is known in Pali as idappaccayata, the principle of conditionality.

A. Imasmim sati idam hoti: When there is this, that is.
Imasuppada idam upajjati: With the arising of this, that arises.

B. Imasmim asati idam na hoti: When this is not, neither is that.
Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati: With the cessation of this, that ceases. [S.II.28,65]


All things are interrelated and interdependent; all things exist in relation to each other; all things exist dependent on determinants; all things have no enduring existence, not even for a moment; all things have no intrinsic entity; all things are without First Cause, or Genesis.

The functioning of the principle of Dependent Origination applies to all things, both physical and mental, and expresses itself through a number of natural laws. These are:

1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Essentially, kamma is intention (cetana), and this word includes will, choice and decision, the mental impetus which leads to action. Intention is that which instigates and directs all human actions, both creative and destructive, and is therefore the essence of kamma, as is given in the Buddha's words, Cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami: Monks! Intention, I say, is kamma. Having willed, we create kamma, through body, speech and mind.

One instance of intention is one instance of kamma. When there is kamma there is immediate result. Even just one little thought, although not particularly important, is nevertheless not void of consequence. It will be at the least a "tiny speck" of kamma, added to the stream of conditions which shape mental activity. With repeated practice, through repeated proliferation by the mind, or through expression as external activity, the result becomes stronger in the form of character traits, physical features or repercussions from external sources.

A destructive intention does not have to be on a gross level. It may, for example, lead to the destruction of only a very small thing, such as when we angrily tear up a piece of paper. Even though that piece of paper has no importance in itself, the action still has some effect on the quality of the mind. The effect is very different from tearing up a piece of paper with a neutral state of mind, such as when throwing away scrap paper. If there is repeated implementation of such angry intention, the effects of accumulation will become clearer and clearer, and may develop to more significant levels.

Consider the specks of dust which come floating unnoticed into a room; there isn't one speck which is void of consequence. It is the same for the mind. But the weight of that consequence, in addition to being dependent on the amount of mental "dust," is also related to the quality of the mind. For instance, specks of dust which alight onto a road surface have to be of a very large quantity before the road will seem to be dirty. Specks of dust which alight onto a floor, although of a much smaller quantity, may make the floor seem dirtier than the road. A smaller amount of dust accumulating on a table top will seem dirty enough to cause irritation. An even smaller amount alighting on a mirror will seem dirty and will interfere with its functioning. A tiny speck of dust on a spectacle lens is perceptible and can impair vision. In the same way, volition or intention, no matter how small, is not void of fruit. As the Buddha said:

"All kamma, whether good or evil, bears fruit. There is no kamma, no matter how small, which is void of fruit."

Sanghamitta wrote: But clearly there are a number of approaches to Dhamma.

Those are wise words Sanghamitta

Sometimes I get the nagging suspicion that my own approach makes other people a tad ... errr ... uncomfortable?

I can only apologise for that if, or when, it happens. That and ask people to understand that certain aspects of the karmic fruits (vippaka?) ripening in my own life make it neccesary that the little dhamma I do understand I can back up the wisdom of without the use of internal reference to buddhist teachings. External verifications, for reasons I would have to type out a 'War and Peace' lenght essay upon just to scratch the surface of, are essential life tools for me right now.

I am very gratefull to all those here who shed light on more conventional approaches to buddhist wisdoms, btw. It is they who give me the confidence that the buddhist way (in one flavour or another) is the best way to do what I have to get done.

As my husband is wont to say, practice as you can, not as you cant. It might be interesting for you at sometime to compare your ideas with what is recorded in the Suttas as well as to experience. You might find some differences as well as some things in common.

Clueless Git wrote:

Sanghamitta wrote: But clearly there are a number of approaches to Dhamma.

Those are wise words Sanghamitta

Sometimes I get the nagging suspicion that my own approach makes other people a tad ... errr ... uncomfortable?

Your own approach is your way of verifying the truth of the Buddha's teaching. It is what the Buddha insist his followers do, not just take his words blindly. This is how true insights are gain.

retrofuturist wrote: Robbers didn't come to get the arahant because of his kamma (which would be the conventional worldly way of explanation in most discussions about kamma), but rather... because of the absence of kamma, becoming, existence etc. in the arahant there was no dukkha entailed on account of the event.

Thanks, Retro. It seems that if we concentrate on learning to "see with wisdom", the conventional worldly explanation starts to become a non-issue. In worrying overmuch about good versus bad vipaka, we're still stuck in the basic mechanism of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, no? And that doesn't sound like liberation.

I'll take a close look at the Sayadaw text and the links Bhikkhu Pesala provided. Heard a pretty good overview from Joseph Goldstein awhile back...he covers heavy kamma, proximate kamma, habitual kamma, the metaphor of the cows locked in the barn.

http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/1401/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't generally run into problems with kamma theory per se...it's when we try to retroactively apply kamma as an explanation for some particular happening or condition that the headaches sometimes arise. (Perhaps it's the kammic fruit of these kind of mind games...!).

Namaste,
LE

Its certainly problematic to ascribe particular happenstances to particular causes, all we can really do is point to the teachings which say that this behaviour will have this result, in the case of a particular individual though we simply dont know..