When is there wrong view re fruit of deeds?

[phil]

Hi all

I was originally going to post this in the thread on "essential right view" but it seems like a different topic.

So it seems to me that moments of not-having right view do not equal moments of having wrong view.

Phil,

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think we share equivalent views. It is obvious that I do not (yet) have Right View. However, I will state with equal conviction that I also do not possess wrong view; I simply don't know. I do not yet know from direct personal experience the insights that will reveal the reality of rebirth or the multi-lifetime nature of kamma. (I am, however, very comfortable with the concept of current life-time kamma.)

Regards: AdvaitaJ

Hi Advaita and all

Yes, I think that's what I was getting at, but I'm not so sure know that it's right. If I kill a mosquito, for example, as I do on occasion, I confess - even if there is not an wrong explicit view "it's ok to do this", even if there is never that explicit view, isn't there an implicit wrong view "it's ok to do this" when the hand slaps the skeeter? So I would guess there are still many moments of wrong view of this kind for us, very momentary moments that are not explicit views, but are still very real, however momentary. Whereas a child who did it, who didn't know the Buddha's teaching, wouldn't have wrong view, even though he was performing akusala kamma patha. But we know better because of our appreciation of Dhamma, so whenever there is akusala kamma patha (any one of the ten unwholesome deeds that are of a degree heavy enough to become the kamma that performs the rebirth function, if I understand correctly) isn't wrong view implicit?

Metta,

Phil

[kc2dpt]

Is it wrong view or is it a matter of wrong priorities? I know that piece of cake is unnecessary from a nutritional standpoint, I know it will detract from my health, add to my waistline... still I prioritize the short term pleasure from eating it over the long term benefits from abstaining from it. Perhaps there is an implicit wrong view buried under there somewhere? I don't know.

[phil]

Hi Peter and all

I guess what I mean by implicit wrong view is that - in Abhidhamma terms at least - the akusala citta that is behind the deed can sometimes be accompanied by wrong view and sometimes not. But when cittas are defined as very momentary, it is hard to understand what the "wrong view" (ditthi) is that could accompany a fleeting mind moment. It wouldn't seem that there could be a fleeting moment of "no harm will come from this" but that is what wrong view is about.

Metta,

Phil

[kc2dpt]

Maybe.

It's a good question you are asking in this thread. I'm glad you asked it. I look forward to reading other responses.

[AdvaitaJ]

Phil,

I recently listened to a dhamma talk by Andrea Fella about circumstances such as this that draws a strong correlation between the intention behind the act and the karmic consequences of it. The example she used was killing a spider. In one instance, you're just walking across the yard and you step on and kill a spider without even knowing it. There was no intention to kill. On the other hand, you see a spider in your house and with malice aforethought, kill it. Bad intention definitely present.

So...when you swat the skeeter, was there any thinking behind the act or was it pure reflex? Andrea went on to describe another example where a black widow (or a funnel web for you Aussies ) is about to descend on a sleeping baby and there is only time to swat it before it reaches the baby. Again, the intention behind the act is wholesome and not based on hatred, so...not bad.

(Disclaimer: During a talk, it was explicitly stated that the precept against killing says to "avoid" killing beings that "breathe". The big question in my mind is whether or not people in the time of the Buddha believed that insects breathe. I don't think I would have concluded that insects breathed back then and may not have even thought that fish breathe, but this is likely going to be the topic for another thread when I get around to it.)

Regards: AdvaitaJ

[phil]

Hi Peter and all

I guess what I mean by implicit wrong view is that - in Abhidhamma terms at least - the akusala citta that is behind the deed can sometimes be accompanied by wrong view and sometimes not. But when cittas are defined as very momentary, it is hard to understand what the "wrong view" (ditthi) is that could accompany a fleeting mind moment. It wouldn't seem that there could be a fleeting moment of "no harm will come from this" but that is what wrong view is about.

Metta,

Phil

Thanks for the responses, guys. Just on the run, but would like to note that a quick glance at Abhidhamma in Daily Life reminded me that, kind of surprisingly, cittas rooted in dosa (aversion) can't arise accompanied by wrong view, it is only prompted or unprompted. It is cittas rooted in greed (lobha) that are rooted in wrong view or not. (It was a very quick glance, so correct me if I'm wrong.) So, surprisingly enough, if killing is motived by cittas rooted in dosa, there can not be wrong view accompanying. I guess the wrong view is involved at different moments.

I know Abhidhamma is not everyone's thing, so you'll have to forgive me for always bringing the Abhidhamma angle into things. My personal feeling these days is that it's good to start with an understanding of the most refined theory, intellectually, before we decide whether our practice should/can proceed without it.

Metta,

Phil