Just my thoughts on Kamma.
In AN 5.57,
https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodh ... ript=latin
"Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? ....
.....And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’"
Yet, in SN12.46,
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.46/en/bod ... ript=latin
Brahmin: "How is it, Master Gotama: is the one who acts the same as the one who experiences the result?”
Bhagava: “‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result’: this, brahmin, is one extreme.”
Brahmin: “Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts one, and the one who experiences the result another?”
Bhagava: “‘The one who acts is one, and the one who experiences the result is another’: this, brahmin, is the second extreme.
So, in one sutta, the Blessed One encouraged us to reflect "I am the owner of my Kamma". Another sutta, the Master showed the view that "he who acts is he who reaps" is wrong. But does that contradictory?
Not so.
For the Buddha is a Vibhajjavadin, an Analyser, who speaks not adhering to extreme.
Mahākammavibhaṅgasutta (MN136)
“I heard and learned this, friend Samiddhi, from the monk Gotama’s lips: ‘Bodily kammas are vain, verbal kammas are vain, only mental kammas are true.’ But there is actually that attainment having entered upon which nothing (of result of kammas) is felt at all.”
“Not so, friend Potaliputta, do not say thus, do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One; the Blessed One would not say so: ‘Bodily kammas are vain, verbal kammas are vain, only mental kammas are true.’ And there is actually that attainment having entered upon which nothing (of result of kammas) is felt at all.”
“How long is it since you went forth, friend Samiddhi?”
“Not long, friend, three years.”
“There now, what shall we say to the elder bhikkhus, when the young bhikkhu fancies the Master is to be defended thus? After doing intentional kamma, friend Samiddhi, by way of body, speech or mind, what does one feel (of its result)?”
“After doing an intentional kamma, friend Potaliputta, by way of body, speech or mind, one feels suffering (as its result).”
Then neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the words of the venerable Samiddhi, the wanderer Potaliputta got up from his seat and went away.
Soon after the wanderer Potaliputta had gone, the venerable Samiddhi went to the venerable Ananda and exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side. When he had done so, he told the venerable Ananda all his conversation with the wanderer Potaliputta.
When this was said, the venerable Ananda told him: “Friend Samiddhi, this conversation should be told to the Blessed One. Come, let us go to the Blessed One, and having done so, let us tell him about this. As he answers, so we shall bear it in mind.”
“Even so, friend,” the venerable Samiddhi replied.
Then they went together to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side. When they had done so, the venerable Ananda told the Blessed One all the venerable Samiddhi’s conversation with the wanderer Potaliputta.
When this was said, the Blessed One told the venerable Ananda:
“I do not even know the wanderer by sight, Ananda. How could there have been such a conversation? The wanderer Potaliputta’s question ought to have been answered after analyzing it, but this misguided man Samiddhi answered it without qualification.
When this was said, the venerable Udayin said to the Blessed One: “‘But, venerable sir, supposing when the venerable Samiddhi spoke, he was referring to this, namely, ‘Whatever is felt is suffering.’”
Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Ananda: “See, Ananda, how this misguided man Udayin interferes. I knew, Ananda, that this misguided man Udayin would unreasonably interfere now. To begin with it was the three kinds of feeling that were asked about by the wanderer Potaliputta. If, when this misguided man Samiddhi was asked, he had answered the wanderer Potaliputta thus: ‘After doing an intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind (whose result is) to be felt as pleasure, he feels pleasure; after doing an intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind (whose result is) to be felt as pain, he feels pain; after doing an intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind (whose result is) to be felt as neither-pain-nor-pleasure, he feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure’ — by answering him thus, Ananda, the misguided man Samiddhi would have given the wanderer Potaliputta the right answer. Besides, Ananda, who are the foolish thoughtless wanderers of other sects that they will understand the Tathagata’s Great Exposition of Kamma? (But) if you, Ananda, would listen to the Tathagata expounding the Great Exposition of Kamma (you might understand it).
The Buddha, when expounding the AN 5.57 discourse, 'I' was a conventional term, intended for normal usage. When comes to SN 12.46, there the Teacher explained in term of ultimate sense.
For Buddha said "One should not insist on local language, and one should not override normal usage." (Araṇavibhaṅgasutta MN139)
Hence it was also said in Visuddhimagga,
The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression “dependent origination” (paticca-samuppada) represents the middle way , which rejects the doctrines, “He who acts is he who reaps” and “One acts while another reaps” (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, “Not insisting on local language and not overriding normal usage” (M III 234).
