Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike, all,

It seems that the abhidhamma/commentary scheme has separated physical and mental results of kamma in a way that the suttas do not. It's not so much a contradiction as a change of terminology.

Yes, I agree... quite possibly a result of different renderings of nama-rupa.

Whichever scheme one uses, I have not seen any support in sutta/abhidhamma/commentary that "the effects of kamma are purely mental". I would be interested to see such a statement.

Moreso than separating mental from physical (which I agree is probably a post-Buddha distinction, albeit at least canonical), I think the emphasis ought to be on vipaka being within loka, not outside loka... and clods, sticks, comets and such aren't within loka, as loka is defined by the Buddha. Only aggregates (which disintegrate) and senses (which disintegrate) are within loka.

That's possibly a more useful change in terminology, both remaining within the domain of the suttas and veering away from the kind of superstitious mumbo jumbo that requires some kind of kammic gravitational vortex to suck potential projectiles in the direction of naughty, naughty people in order to enact cosmic justice.



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 72#p125456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thread linked really does not address Angulimala. The Angulimala sutta clearly, straightforwardly refers to the fruit of kamma.

So you're suggesting that Angulimala's past kamma, caused another person to create new kamma (i.e. throw the clods)? That is of course the logical implication of your interpretation of the sutta... think quite carefully about whether you want to commit yourself to that conclusion... what propelled the clod(s) and caused it to hit Angulimala? Was it someone else's volitional activity, was it some variety of kammic gravitational vortex that propelled the clod(s) in his direction? Can one man's kamma be another man's vipaka?

Well, let us see here. The text in question:

Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

My guess is that killing nearly 1,000 people in a particular locale is going to have an effect on the locals who likely would take a very dim view of such activity and person who caused it. The Buddha explained what happened as fruit of kamma, which something you have yet to address.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

My guess is that killing nearly 1,000 people in a particular locale is going to have an effect on the locals who likely would take a very dim view of such activity and person who caused it. The Buddha explained what happened as fruit of kamma, which something you have yet to address.

So the fruit of action is dished out by mob justice?

That's the Buddha's teachings on kamma?

Is it possible that rather than dumbing down the profound teaching of kamma down to the level of mob repraisals, we could consider perhaps that the buddha is using the word kamma in its nontechnical sense of action rather than in a technical cetana/vipaka sense.

Metta,
Retro.

[acinteyyo]

Greetings Tilt,

My guess is that killing nearly 1,000 people in a particular locale is going to have an effect on the locals who likely would take a very dim view of such activity and person who caused it. The Buddha explained what happened as fruit of kamma, which something you have yet to address.

So the fruit of action is dished out by mob justice?

That's the Buddha's teachings on kamma?

Metta,
Retro.

Don't jump to conclusions overhasty. There's no need for any "kind of superstitious mumbo jumbo that requires some kind of kammic gravitational vortex to suck potential projectiles in the direction of naughty, naughty people in order to enact cosmic justice". The Buddha's teaching on kamma simply is that kamma bears fruits. The precise working "behind the scenes" (if there is any "behind" at all) is "acinteyya" - unthinkable and there's no need for ridicoulus statements assuming superstitious mumbo jumbo. It's quite common that if someone acts in a certain way whithin a particular locale that this is going to have an effect on the locals. This doesn't necessarily mean that some kind of kammic gravitational vortex sucks potential projectiles in the direction of a particular person. But a particular person possibly draws for example hate of locals as a fruit of action. Don't you think?

best wishes, acinteyyo

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

My guess is that killing nearly 1,000 people in a particular locale is going to have an effect on the locals who likely would take a very dim view of such activity and person who caused it. The Buddha explained what happened as fruit of kamma, which something you have yet to address.

So the fruit of action is dished out by mob justice?

That's the Buddha's teachings on kamma?

Is it possible that rather than dumbing down the profound teaching of kamma down to the level of mob repraisals, we could consider perhaps that the buddha is using the word kamma in its nontechnical sense of action rather than in a technical cetana/vipaka sense.

Metta,
Retro.

So, essentially, you are saying that the Buddha felt no need to speak at a level appropriate to an arahant.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

So, essentially, you are saying that the Buddha felt no need to speak at a level appropriate to an arahant.

Whilst under the hail of projectiles is hardly the environment for a suitably nuanced discussion. I mean, he calls him "brahman"... another word with both a conventional meaning and a nuanced Dhamma meaning. The phrase, as translated, is far more up for interpretation than you seem to infer.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings acinteyyo,

The Buddha's teaching on kamma simply is that kamma bears fruits.
...
But a particular person possibly draws for example hate of locals as a fruit of action. Don't you think?

I think that's over-simplifying it. What you speak here is nothing other than conventional cause and effect... hardly a radical new and profound teaching.

The precise working "behind the scenes" (if there is any "behind" at all) is "acinteyya" - unthinkable

The precise explanatory workings (such as that what the commentators happen to venture in their writings), sure... I'd agree with you on that.

However, the Buddha taught that "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known." (AN 6.63)

Therefore, the only reason anything would be "behind the scenes", would be because it remains obscured by lack of penetrative insight (i.e. the "cessation of kamma" which should be known, is not). To wipe our hands of any responsibility of understanding kamma and its fruit beyond it being some generic "law of cause and effect" seems to miss the point of the above sutta, or even frankly, the need for the Buddha to teach it in the first place.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

So, essentially, you are saying that the Buddha felt no need to speak at a level appropriate to an arahant.

While under the hail of projectiles is hardly the environment for a suitably nuanced discussion.

Metta,
Retro.

Except, the hail of projectiles was over; Ven Angulimala went to the Buddha after the fact. You are working really hard to to try to dismiss this text. The production of kamma is done for Angulimala; however, the fruit of past actions seems to linger.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

however, the fruit of past actions seems to linger.

Technically, according to the Buddha's teachings on kamma, that cetana results in vipaka? Or conventionally, according to the common maxim a child could understand, that actions have consequences?

Which are you stating?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

However, the Buddha taught that "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known." (AN 6.63)

The cessation of kamma is action no longer driven by greed, hatred and delusion, but do show us that one, as an arahant, is totally free of the results of past action. Results. There is nothing in what you have quoted that states the results of all past action (kamma) has ceased.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I'm still not clear on whether you're speaking technically about...

i) kamma(cetana)/vipaka
ii) "cause and effect"

Hence, I can't respond (yet)

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

however, the fruit of past actions seems to linger.

Technically, according to the Buddha's teachings on kamma, that cetana results in vipaka? Or conventionally, according to the common maxim a child could understand, that actions have consequences?

Which are you stating?

Metta,
Retro.

Kamma is the Pali word for action. What I do based upon my cetana has consequences.

A. VI, 13: "Volition is action (karma), thus I say, o monks; for as soon as volition arises, one does the action, be it by body, speech or mind."

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I'm still not clear on whether you're speaking technically about...

i) kamma(cetana)/vipaka
ii) "cause and effect"

Hence, I can't respond (yet)

Metta,
Retro.

You are taking kamma and vipaka as equivalent?

[tiltbillings]

[ NOTE: Split from http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6353" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ]

Greetings,

Regarding whether arahants experience vipaka or not...

"Listen, Udayi. A bhikkhu in this Teaching and Discipline cultivates the Mindfulness Enlightenment Factor ... the Equanimity Enlightenment Factor, which tend to seclusion, tend to dispassion, tend to cessation, which are well developed, which are boundless, void of irritation. Having cultivated the Mindfulness Enlightenment Factor ... the Equanimity Enlightenment Factor ... craving is discarded. With the discarding of craving, kamma is discarded. With the discarding of kamma, suffering is discarded. Thus, with the ending of craving there is the ending of kamma; with the ending of kamma there is the ending of suffering."
S.V.86 (S.19/450/123) - http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma9.htm#41" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arahants have discarded vipaka/suffering.

Where does it say here that vipaka IS suffering?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

You are taking kamma and vipaka as equivalent?

No, I'm regarding them as a pair, not as synonymous terms.

Kamma is the Pali word for action.

Yes.

What I do based upon my cetana has consequences.

That still doesn't answer the question.... conventional consequences, or technical vipaka consequences?

Let us take the example of unknowingly stepping on a slug.

It is an action (walking) and it has consequences (mooshy slug, sloppy sole of the shoe).

The walking was volitional - you chose to walk.

What do you say is the "fruit" in this situation... is it the mooshy slug and soggy sole, or is it nothing, because there was no intention to harm (i.e. no unwholesome mindstate)?

If you say the former, you're speaking conventionally - if you say the latter, you're speaking in the Dhammic sense.

Metta,
Retro.