AN 3.100 is about the result of action, and how one developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind and wisdom will experience the result of some trifling bad deed in this life with no residue remaining, while one undeveloped in these four ways can end up in hell for the same trifling deed. If I recall, I have seen the similes in this sutta taken out of context, especially the second and third where we find references to structural inequality. Note this is not a case where the Buddha is advocating for the unequal treatment of the poor. It seems clear he is simply pointing out how the wealthy are able to pay their way out of misdeeds, while the poor are unable to do so. In the same way, one developed in the four ways will face a less harsh result here and now instead of going to hell. These comparisons look to be strictly for the purpose of clarifying meaning and are in no way the promotion of elitism.
“Bhikkhus, if one were to say thus: ‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’ in such a case there could be no living of the spiritual life and no opportunity would be seen for completely making an end of suffering. But if one were to say thus: ‘When a person creates kamma that is to be experienced in a particular way, he experiences its result precisely in that way,’ in such a case the living of the spiritual life is possible and an opportunity is seen for completely making an end of suffering.
“Here, bhikkhus, some person has created trifling bad kamma yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling kamma yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
“What kind of person creates trifling bad kamma that leads him to hell? Here, some person is undeveloped in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom; he is limited and has a mean character, and he dwells in suffering. When such a person creates trifling bad kamma, it leads him to hell.
“What kind of person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma and yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue]? Here, some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. He is unlimited and has a lofty character, and he dwells without measure. “When such a person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
(1) “Suppose a man would drop a lump of salt into a small bowl of water. What do you think, bhikkhus? Would that lump of salt make the small quantity of water in the bowl salty and undrinkable?”
“Yes, Bhante. For what reason? Because the water in the bowl is limited, thus that lump of salt would make it salty and undrinkable.”
“But suppose a man would drop a lump of salt into the river Ganges. What do you think, bhikkhus? Would that lump of salt make the river Ganges become salty and undrinkable?”
“No, Bhante. For what reason? Because the river Ganges contains a large volume of water, thus that lump of salt would not make it salty and undrinkable.”
“So too, bhikkhus, some person here has created trifling bad kamma yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling kamma yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
“What kind of person creates trifling bad kamma that leads him to hell? Here, some person is undeveloped in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. When such a person creates a trifling bad kamma, it leads him to hell.
“What kind of person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma and yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less an abundant [residue]? Here, some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. When such a person has created exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].”
“(2) “Here, bhikkhus, someone is imprisoned for [stealing] half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, or a hundred kahāpaṇas, while someone else is not imprisoned for [stealing] the same amount of money.”
“What kind of person is imprisoned for [stealing] half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, or a hundred kahāpaṇas? Here, someone is poor, with little property and wealth. Such a person is imprisoned for [stealing] half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, or a hundred kahāpaṇas.
“What kind of person is not imprisoned for [stealing] half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, or a hundred kahāpaṇas? Here, someone is rich, with much money and wealth. Such a person is not imprisoned for [stealing] half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, or a hundred kahāpaṇas.
“So too, bhikkhus, some person has created trifling bad kamma yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling kamma yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
“What kind of person creates trifling bad kamma that leads him to hell? Here, some person is undeveloped in body … and wisdom. When such a person has created trifling bad kamma, it leads him to hell.
“What kind of person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma and yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less an abundant [residue]? Here, some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. When such a person has created exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
(3) “Bhikkhus, take the case of a sheep merchant or butcher, who can execute, imprison, fine, or otherwise penalize someone who has stolen one of his sheep but can’t do so to someone else who has stolen his sheep.
“What kind of person can the sheep merchant or butcher execute, imprison, fine, or otherwise penalize for stealing a sheep? One who is poor, with little property and wealth. The sheep merchant or butcher can execute, imprison, fine, or otherwise penalize such a person for stealing a sheep.”
“What kind of person can’t the sheep merchant or butcher execute, imprison, fine, or otherwise penalize for stealing a sheep? One who is rich, with a lot of money and wealth, a king or royal minister. The sheep merchant or butcher can’t execute, imprison, fine, or otherwise penalize such a person for stealing a sheep; he can only plead with him: ‘Sir, return my sheep or pay me for it.’
“So too, bhikkhus, some person has created trifling bad kamma yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling kamma yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
“What kind of person creates trifling bad kamma that leads him to hell? Here, some person is undeveloped in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom; he is limited and has a mean character, and he dwells in suffering. When such kind of person has created a trifling bad kamma, it leads him to hell.”
“What kind of person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma and yet it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less an abundant [residue]? Here, some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. He is unlimited and has a lofty character, and he dwells without measure. When such a person has created exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
“If, bhikkhus, one were to say thus: ‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’ in such a case there could be no living of the spiritual life and no opportunity would be seen for completely making an end of suffering. But if one were to say thus: ‘When a person creates kamma that is to be experienced in a particular way, he experiences its result precisely in that way,’ in such a case the living of the spiritual life is possible and an opportunity is seen for completely making an end of suffering.”
I have always found those two statements to be a bit tricky to understand. Translators seem to agree on what they mean, but somehow they appear to be clumsy and poorly formulated. My best guess is that the former: ‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’ or ‘In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,’ refers to the view that there is an invariant relationship between kamma and vipaka.
But this is difficult to understand. In the case of physically harming someone, for example, or slandering them in speech, one might imagine that the doer of the action subsequently receives exactly that kind of treatment themselves. The crude view that if we murder someone, we will at some point in the future (post-mortem would make most sense in that it would allow time for fruition) be murdered; or that if we destroy someone's reputation through slander, we will suffer the destruction of our reputation by being slandered in exactly the same way. But it's difficult to see how anyone could consistently hold this view when it comes to mental actions. If we harbour angry thoughts but don't act upon them, then nobody is harmed (except ourselves of course). So what type of vipaka would one then incur? How could the angry thoughts affect us adversely in the future, and by what conceivable agency?
This raises the central problem of how kamma/vipaka works, and how we might conceive of an action which is to be felt. This seems like an obvious category error; actions are done, feelings are felt. Actions can obviously cause feelings, but they don't have to, and they are separate things. Conversely, feelings occur, but not always as a result of actions.
Perhaps according to this first model, the invariance is more subtle in that we don't know what it is, but might nevertheless hypothesise that it exists. A certain degree of intention will always result in a certain degree of feeling, although which type of feeling remains a mystery.
But here is another problem. If either of the above were thought to be the case, why would the holy life and the escape from suffering be impossible? Would not that invariance eventually allow one to discern which actions led to suffering, and eventually eliminate them?
The second position (the correct one) is not much clearer.‘When a person creates kamma that is to be experienced in a particular way, he experiences its result precisely in that way’.
It seems a bit more subtle a position than the first. But what sense can we make of "kamma that is to be experienced in a particular way", or 'kamma to be felt in such & such a way' (Thanissaro). It seems tautological and empty. If kamma gives rise to vipaka, then isn't all kamma "to be experienced in a particular way"? Including even the kamma in the first, incorrect, view? If it were not experienced in some determinate form, it would not be vipaka.
Perhaps the Buddha is merely saying here that there is a determined form of vipaka, that the correct view is less simply deterministic that the invariance of the first view. That kamma is real, but less crude in operation than the first view would suggest.
Regarding the similes of theft and social position, I've always liked them. They only appear strange to us (and, as you say, can be misinterpreted as support for elitism and privilege) because we in the modern west developed the concept of equality before the law. Without the rule of law, that's exactly what happens. We can even see it where the rule of law does not extend to or is not invoked, such as at work or in friendship groups. The guy who works hard and takes care can get away with big errors from time to time, whereas the unpopular colleague who is known as a lazy shirker gets into big trouble....I guess it's a question of "moral capital". And the Buddha seems to be indicating that there is a kind of kammic capital as well.
Thank you for this choice, SDC. It's very thought-provoking!
AN 3.100 is about the result of action, and how one developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind and wisdom will experience the result of some trifling bad deed in this life with no residue remaining, while one undeveloped in these four ways can end up in hell for the same trifling deed
What if a sotapanna who has perfect virtue develops an extremely painful disease that makes him extemely irritable (think of the story of the elephant with a thorn in his foot). Will the sotapanna break out into anger and perhaps yell at someone pestering him? The sotapanna is not fully developed like an Arahant, but is the sotapanna still capable of producing light bad karma, not enough to lead to rebirth in the lower planes?
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
SDC wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:17 am
... some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom... When such a person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
Brings to mind: a developed person will not inflict themselves with a second arrow on experiencing the result of some bad action. Of course, this ability is itself the result of good action: training/practice. A type of "kammic capital " as Sam suggests.
This "no second arrow" may not be the same mechanism being described above (?), but it is one that is relatively easy for me to get.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
It is about intention.
If the intention or the inclination of the mind is impure or evil the act leads to hell. The result is experienced in the same way it is created.
If the intention or the inclination of the mind (of the instructed ones) is pure or wholesome the act does not lead to hell. The result is experienced according to the intention in the here and now and does not result in further kamma and kamma resultants.
The opening paragraph is very explicit. What is the difference between the two statements? Why is the first wrong and the second right?
‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’
‘When a person creates kamma that is to be experienced in a particular way, he experiences its result precisely in that way,’
Looking forward to hearing from everyone.
I think the "person" in the first statement is presented as a noun, a passive who experiences kamma the same way he created it. The act of creation by the person is not denied, but placed at the end of the statement. It is not the center of attention, but the person who experiences vipaka is. The term "same" implies repetition in contrast with the precision presented in the second statement.
In the second statement, the person is presented as an active actor, placed right before creation (rather than experiencing). It is the kamma/action that is to be experienced, but the person is a creator. The term "same" is absent from the second statement, implying originality in action rather than mindless repetition which leads to same results. This originality translates into skill (focusing on precision) where mastering the way is the key.
I am not sure if the first is wrong and the second is right except through translating the two into actions. When attention is paid to the person who experiences, the pain remains the center of attention and the right grasp/way will never be mastered. When attention is paid on the right grasp, and in the rare case of getting bitten, the solution would never be mistaken by paying attention to the pain, but continues to be on the grasp itself.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:58 am
I have always found those two statements to be a bit tricky to understand. Translators seem to agree on what they mean, but somehow they appear to be clumsy and poorly formulated. My best guess is that the former: ‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’ or ‘In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,’ refers to the view that there is an invariant relationship between kamma and vipaka.
But this is difficult to understand. In the case of physically harming someone, for example, or slandering them in speech, one might imagine that the doer of the action subsequently receives exactly that kind of treatment themselves. The crude view that if we murder someone, we will at some point in the future (post-mortem would make most sense in that it would allow time for fruition) be murdered; or that if we destroy someone's reputation through slander, we will suffer the destruction of our reputation by being slandered in exactly the same way. But it's difficult to see how anyone could consistently hold this view when it comes to mental actions. If we harbour angry thoughts but don't act upon them, then nobody is harmed (except ourselves of course). So what type of vipaka would one then incur? How could the angry thoughts affect us adversely in the future, and by what conceivable agency?
Hi Sam,
Just having a look at the Pali, the fact that the act is a appamattaka (trifle) one would likely be more critical to the undeveloped person. This does not look to be a case of a sotapanna getting away with theft and murder towards other humans as much as it is one of an undeveloped person going to hell for perhaps stepping on a fly or swearing too often at their parents. In other words, the hook of this sutta seems to be that this lack of development can mean that even the most insignificant evil act can be the nail in the coffin for someone with limits.
There is no getting around that it is the extent to which these limits have been developed that determines how the act comes to fruition. So the first statement seems to indicate a view that any limits beyond the action itself have no affect on how it runs it’s course. As if to say the act, enclosed within itself, determines the result. Such a view would imply that the act would fill whatever space no matter how much or little. Apply that view to a seemingly insignificant action, this would imply that limits don’t matter. Whatever the act was, it remains just that act and will come to fruition just like that. Taking the most famous case of Aṅgulimāla, who had killed many (not a trifle deed); he only had to bear one severe beating and that was how it all came to a head. So the result was not the same as he created it.
The second statement is perhaps difficult to phrase. The part “that is to be experienced in a particular way” seems to indicate the influence of the limits, which in the case of Aṅgulimāla, determined not only severity of the fruition, but also proximity. Had Aṅgulimāla not become an arahant it may have taking ten eons for the results to occur and it may have taken ten more eons for them to be exhausted. But since his development was “unlimited” it all happened here and now. Obviously his case is extreme and the point here much more subtle. That is why it seems to matter much more in the case of the undeveloped person. Without that space for action to dissolve, the littlest thing can be what shapes everything.
Nice analysis by the way. You seem to have taken the availability of space into consideration in the case of feelings. Almost as if to say that the potential results would be right on top of you simply because they had no place else to go. Not sure if I’m reading you right.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
AN 3.100 is about the result of action, and how one developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind and wisdom will experience the result of some trifling bad deed in this life with no residue remaining, while one undeveloped in these four ways can end up in hell for the same trifling deed
What if a sotapanna who has perfect virtue develops an extremely painful disease that makes him extemely irritable (think of the story of the elephant with a thorn in his foot). Will the sotapanna break out into anger and perhaps yell at someone pestering him? The sotapanna is not fully developed like an Arahant, but is the sotapanna still capable of producing light bad karma, not enough to lead to rebirth in the lower planes?
Hi un8-,
There is a sutta (I don’t have time to find it now) describing the things a sotapanna cannot do, and being irritable is definitely not one of them. But it would seem that no matter how awful the behavior is, they would still be free of those lower states.
Edit: AN 6.94 is one sutta listing the things one accomplished in view cannot do.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
SDC wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:17 am
... some person is developed in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom... When such a person creates exactly the same trifling bad kamma, it is to be experienced in this very life, without even a slight [residue] being seen, much less abundant [residue].
Brings to mind: a developed person will not inflict themselves with a second arrow on experiencing the result of some bad action. Of course, this ability is itself the result of good action: training/practice. A type of "kammic capital " as Sam suggests.
This "no second arrow" may not be the same mechanism being described above (?), but it is one that is relatively easy for me to get.
Hi John,
The fact that the sotapanna isn’t struck with the second arrow is a feature of that right view, but I see that as more of how they understand things as opposed to results of action. They don’t get the pleasant result of right view supplementally (nor temporarily) if it has come to fruition; it is a view they’ve earned and it cannot be taken. However, the fact that they are developed in those four ways to a great extent would also imply that the pain associated with lamenting about what they don’t understand wouldn’t be nearly as severe as someone with a whole mountain of suffering yet to be abandoned. In other words, they won’t experience the results of ignorance in same way as the ordinary person. Overall suffering has diminished and that is certainly the reason why any trifling act won’t reintroduce that boundless ignorance, nor will it result in something that they are now free from.
Not sure if I’m twisting your words, John. Apologies if I did.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
sunnat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:18 am
It is about intention.
If the intention or the inclination of the mind is impure or evil the act leads to hell. The result is experienced in the same way it is created.
If the intention or the inclination of the mind (of the instructed ones) is pure or wholesome the act does not lead to hell. The result is experienced according to the intention in the here and now and does not result in further kamma and kamma resultants.
I’m not sure if that unlimited development always implies a wholesome intention - at least not for anyone other than the arahant. In the case of a sotapanna, who is not free of ill-will, the intention may still be unwholesome, but having understood the extent of ignorance to the level of ariya, would likely prevent any evil action from being more than just the trifle type.
That’s just how I read it at least. I could be wrong.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Bundokji wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:37 am
I am not sure if the first is wrong and the second is right except through translating the two into actions. When attention is paid to the person who experiences, the pain remains the center of attention and the right grasp/way will never be mastered. When attention is paid on the right grasp, and in the rare case of getting bitten, the solution would never be mistaken by paying attention to the pain, but continues to be on the grasp itself.
Hi Bundokji,
By wrong I meant this:
“Bhikkhus, if one were to say thus: ‘A person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it,’ in such a case there could be no living of the spiritual life and no opportunity would be seen for completely making an end of suffering.“
I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it was wrong. It just seems that if it were the way things worked, there would be no opening for development.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Suffering is in the minds , if past action causes a painful result at present state , a person with less attachment wont feel much suffering in the mental . If the body suffers a lot of pains , an expansive mind probably could endure it therefore not having feeling of extreme suffering . Overall , imo karmic resultant can be lessen here and now .
asahi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:03 pm
an expansive mind probably could endure it therefore not having feeling of extreme suffering .
Another good point, asahi.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
