Karma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Karma

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Goofaholix,
Goofaholix wrote:To me the whole point of the teaching on kamma is not so we can speculate about why this person or that person experienced good or bad in their lives, but so that we can be aware that what we are doing now will have future results.

It doesn't matter whether it's the skewed version from the skeptics website, or something that sounds nicer, you can't do anything about the past but you can do something about the present and this will affect your future.
Yes, I agree. The point is that if you do bad stuff then bad stuff will happen.
Goofaholix wrote: Some time ago I saw a scripture quoted that basically said such speculation is a waste of time, I wish I had made not of the reference, maybe somebody knows an can post it.
You may mean this:
AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
As you say, this supports thinking in terms of avoiding bad kamma to guard against possible future bad stuff.

However, it's sometimes used, with what I consider to be faulty logic, in the following manner:
"Since we can't know the precise working out of the results of kamma then it's not possible that [...] can be a result of kamma and anyone who states that [...] could be result of kamma misunderstands the Buddha's teaching."
By that standard, Venerable Nyanatiloka, who I quoted above http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3667#p53344" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; misunderstands the Dhamma...
Of all those circumstances and conditions constituting the destiny of a being, none, according to the Buddha's Teaching, can come into existence without a previous cause and the presence of a number of necessary conditions. Just as, for example, from a rotten mango seed a healthy mango tree with healthy and sweet fruits never will come, just so the evil volitional actions, or evil kamma, produced in former births, are the seeds, or root-causes, of an evil destiny in a later birth. It is a necessary postulate of thinking that the good and bad destiny of a being, as well as its latent character, cannot be the product of mere chance, but must of necessity have its causes in a previous birth.
So, don't try to figure out why this bad stuff is happing to you, but recognise that it is due to causes and conditions and that what happens in the future depends on the choices you make now.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Karma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Nyanatiloka Mahathera wrote:Thus a real understanding of the Buddha's doctrine of kamma and rebirth is possible only to one who has caught a glimpse of the egoless nature, or anattata, and of the conditionality, or idappaccayata, of all phenomena of existence.
And therein lies the fundamental difference between Buddhist kamma and Hindu karma.

It's worth taking note of the term "phenomena of existence" and thinking about what that means in a Buddhist (rather than worldly) sense...

Extract from SN 2.19: Rohitassa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
In other words... it consists of things that one might conventionally call "internal" to a being... namely the five aggregates.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Karma

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,

Sure. Ven Nyanatiloka continues later:
Buddhism teaches that if in previous births the bodily, verbal and mental kamma, or volitional activities, have been evil and low and thus have unfavorably influenced the subconscious life-stream (bhavanga-sota), then also the results, manifested in the present life, must be disagreeable and evil; and so must be the character and the new actions induced or conditioned through the evil pictures and images of the subconscious life-stream. If the beings, however, have in former lives sown good seeds, then they will reap good fruits in the present life.
On an ultimate level kamma is explained to be internal, but, if there is bad kamma: "the results, manifested in the present life, must be disagreeable and evil;"

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Karma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:On an ultimate level kamma is explained to be internal, but, if there is bad kamma: "the results, manifested in the present life, must be disagreeable and evil;"
I don't see why you've used the word "but" in that sentence. It alludes to the latter half of the sentence as not referring to the internal. Is that what you meant to imply?

As a side note (though not entirely unrelated as it's internal), here's a little summary of the Abhidhammic perspective on kamma, as sourced from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma.

Abhidhamma Teachings on Kamma
http://www.lordbuddhaswords.org/Karma/A ... Karma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Karma

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:On an ultimate level kamma is explained to be internal, but, if there is bad kamma: "the results, manifested in the present life, must be disagreeable and evil;"
I don't see why you've used the word "but" in that sentence. It alludes to the latter half of the sentence as not referring to the internal. Is that what you meant to imply?
No, I agree that the texts say that if you do your analysis in terms of ultimate/abhidhammic concepts then the results are "internal". But all of our experience is "just aggregates". And those aggregates might include painful feeling associated with a disease or some other calamity that has befallen our happless stream of nama-rupa...

My point is that labelling something "internal" doesn't make it less "disagreeable and evil." Or less "real".

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Karma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

I've got no problems at all with any of that. The dukkha that arises from unwholesome volitions is very real!

The point of differentiating between a Buddhist conception of "phenomena of existence" as internal, by contrast comparison to a more worldly take on the subject, is to demonstrate the absurdity of the comment quoted in the opening post...
Even the child brutalized by drugged adults deserves the horror. The mentally ill, the retarded, the homosexuals, and the millions of Jews killed by the Nazis deserved it for evil they must have done in the past. The slave beaten to within a breath of death deserved it, if not for what he did today, then for what he did in some previous lifetime. Likewise for the rape victim. She is just getting what she deserves.
The killers and rapists mentioned were acting on their own unwholesome volition and were not compelled to act as they did by the kamma or vipaka of their victims. Other sentient beings (and thus the operation of their kamma and vipaka) are internal only to themselves.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Karma

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: The killers and rapists mentioned were acting on their own unwholesome volition and were not compelled to act as they did by the kamma or vipaka of their victims. Other sentient beings (and thus the operation of their kamma and vipaka) are internal only to themselves.
I agree that the killers were not "compelled by the kamma or vipaka of their victims". However, as I understand it, the painful feelings (vipaka) that the victims were feeling could be (at least in part) due to previous kamma (of the victims). And, if not by kammic causes/conditions, by other, non-kammic, causes/conditions.

As Ven Nyanatikoka says:
Of all those circumstances and conditions constituting the destiny of a being, none, according to the Buddha's Teaching, can come into existence without a previous cause and the presence of a number of necessary conditions.
Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Karma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

Yes, many conditions and causes... often quite complex in their relations.

It's a very complicated set of circumstances, involving certain subtleties that would have been incredibly difficult to get through to householders who in all likelihood were still focusing on the sila aspect of the three-fold training and were yet to catch any "glimpse of the egoless nature, or anattata, and of the conditionality, or idappaccayata, of all phenomena of existence", either experientially or theoretically.

Hence, suttas which were morality teachings pitched at householders are often rather simplified in their content... yet still pretty much remain true to the deeper teachings mentioned above (unlike Jataka Tales, Dhammapada commentary stories for example, which over-simplify and distort the Dhamma nearly as badly as the OP quotation did).

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Karma

Post by Lazy_eye »

Not to muddy the waters, but a couple years ago I ran into this quote from Mahasi Sayadaw:
In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve. Usually, men of ordinary intellect cannot comprehend the actual reason or reasons. The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth.
However, in the same essay (http://www.buddhanet.net/t_karma.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) he goes on to present a rather complex intersection of kammic and non-kammic factors, so is it possible his use of "deserve" was a mistranslation? It hardly makes sense to say a farmer "deserved" a crop failure if it was due to Utu Niyama, although of course there could be aspects of the farmer's situation which he/she brought about.

I usually think of kamma as a general principle. The Skepdic folks are using loaded examples to try to discredit the general principle. But with just about any general statement, we can point to apparent exceptions, anomalies or problem cases. Since we are not Buddhas, we don't know all the factors and how they may have combined to produce a particular situation. The point is to apply the principle to our thoughts, speech and action, not to engage in retroactive "kammic diagnoses" as to why someone's life turns out the way it does, or why some horrific atrocity took place. Kammic law, within our limited understanding, can only be an approximation.

I doubt many reasonable people would say that our experience of the world is without any moral dimension. Secular humanists would say that human morality intersects with natural law to produce a result. Buddhists would say that kamma intersects with natural law to produce a result. (If we want to split hairs, we could get into an argument over whether kamma "intersects" with nature or "manifests" via nature). Humanists would say that some things can't be explained in moral terms; Buddhists would say that the intricacies of kamma are imponderable. Just how far is the gap between these positions, really?
Post Reply