mikenz66 wrote:My point is that I continue to be surprised at the outcry whenever anyone states that kamma may have something to do with some misfortune or other. Such people (the outcriers) seem to me to be in denial of Right View...
retrofuturist wrote:I don't know there's any "outcry" per se.
retrofuturist wrote:There is merely the observation that the Buddha's teaching on kamma are often extended by people beyond the domain of which the Buddha taught in the Suttas, into the realm of baseless and fruitless speculation... something the Buddha explicitly warned against.
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma) heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"'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.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of kamma.
"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play... The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said."
— AN 6.63
mikenz66 wrote:And the important thing seems to be to reflect that one's current and future circumstances are crucially dependent on kamma:"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma) heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
retrofuturist wrote:Yes, of course... that is the teaching of kamma and vipaka in worldly or conventional terms... as evidenced by all the instances of "I" and "my".
retrofuturist wrote:To "know kamma" though, one has to go beyond worldly parlance and falsely imputed concepts into the domain of the "world" as it was rightly redefined by the Buddha... the six senses, dependent origination, the five aggregates, and such.... domains for which "I" and "my" have no validity, and in which there is no "doer" of kamma and no "receiver" of vipaka.
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, the Sutta you quoted above is about liberation and ultimate reality. However, even in terms of ultimate reality there is the kamma and there is the vipaka...
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Cooran,cooran wrote:If the Buddha was mistaken on this .... what else would you say he was mistaken on?
I am having trouble finding the sutta reference online at the moment (may it's not online), but there is a sutta where the Buddha says that he does not dispute with the wise. Accordingly, if the prevailing wisdom is such, and he has no experiential knowledge which contradicts it, he will not argue against what the wise say, for what basis would he have to do so? Perhaps you or someone else may recall the sutta and know where it can be found? The Buddha was not omniscient in a God-like sense, and there are suttas in the Pali Canon which make this abundantly clear, so there was much "worldly" knowledge about which he would have no basis to reject.
That said, anything he was "mistaken" on, as a result of accepting what the wise say (in the absence of contradictory experiential knowledge of his own) is absolutely inconsequential to the Path and not worth any of us being particularly bothered about. That he didn't know about the workings of tectonic plates and such, is totally irrelevant from the perspective of the Dhamma he taught (as per the quote below)cooran wrote:Or what else can be taken as ultimate truth in what He says?
Extract from SN 56.31: Simsapa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.
That is the "ultimate truth" of what he says. The Four Noble Truths.cooran wrote:Maybe it could be that Ven. Dhammika didn't understand the teachings?
I would suggest that he did understand, and was suitably and respectfully generous to the Buddha in his analysis. A scientist for example, approaching the matter from a worldly perspective, could have just blatantly dismissed what the Buddha said as ancient ignorance.
Although the Buddha was mistaken in this matter, he was clearly attempting to give a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena.
(Ven. Dhammika blog Jan. 14, 2010)
cooran wrote:I was responding to what sounded like a patronising remark
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], paul and 10 guests