Is being a victim of rape 'kamma vipaka'

[DNS]

Greetings,

One person's kamma is not another's vipaka.

Metta,
Paul.

That quote is a keeper.

[DNS]

Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action.

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Vipaka

[The2nd]

Greetings,

One person's kamma is not another's vipaka.

Metta,
Paul.

A person is responsible for being subject to another's actions, but not responsible for another's choices.

Being subject to rape is ones vipaka, but one is not responsible for the rapist's choice to rape you.

[Ceisiwr]

Some of the unpleasant sensations experienced during and after the rape will be kamma-vipaka. The rapist choosing to rape you is not. Their unwholesome intentional action (for which they will suffer) merely provided the right conditions for unwholesome kamma-vipaka to ripen in the victim.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

A person is responsible for being subject to another's actions, but not responsible for another's choices.

Being subject to rape is ones vipaka, but one is not responsible for the rapist's choice to rape you.

Do you have anything from the suttas to substantiate this convolution?



Metta,
Paul.

[robertk]

I am not aware of any stories about rape related to past lives but there are great examples in the Commentaries of results of past deeds:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... t-Legends/
Dhammapada commentary
In ix. 11 a crow is burned to a crisp in mid-air because in a previous existence as a farmer he burned a lazy ox to death; the wife of a sea-captain is cast overboard as a Jonah because in a previous existence she drowned her dog; and seven monks are imprisoned in a cave for seven days because in a previous existence as young cowherds they thoughtlessly allowed a lizard to remain imprisoned in an ant-hill for seven days.

Or Mogallana who was beaten to death as an arahat - result of his attack on his parents in a past life.

As Santa100 suggested think of the poor rapist now and how the result of his deed must be severe in the future; thus he needs much compassion.

todays zoom meeting topic is kamma and result
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 30#p579730

[robertk]

Salutations fellow Dhamma-farers,
What would your answer to the question 'Are rape victims people who are experiencing Karma vipaka? be' What discourses from the pāḷi canon are you aware of that this topic could potentially involve?

There is this -

Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders … originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

When this was said, the wanderer Moḷiyasīvaka said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!… From today let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Bile, phlegm, and also wind,
Imbalance and climate too,
Carelessness and assault,
With kamma result as the eighth.

https://suttacentral.net/sn36.21/en/bodhi

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... ty#p478864 this thread explains

Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21
Moliyasivaka Sutta
To Sivaka
Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this
?"

The view that Moliyasivaka presented to the Buddha is called pubbakatahetuvada or pubbebbetaka -hetu-ditthi, the view that all feelings in the present life is due to deeds done in former existences. It is an extreme view that is ignorant of the many other conditions operating from the past and present. Another two commonly held views are issaranimmana-hetu-ditthi, the view that a creator God is responsible for the experiences in this life; ahetu-apaccaya-ditthi, the view that there is no such thing as kamma and that all feelings arise by chance. This last view is fairly common in our age with many people imagining that it is by chance that they are born as man or woman or dog or horse, and that their experiences in life happen largely by chance and present effort only. Some people hold to views which are a mix of two or even all three. In this sutta the Buddha was concerned to refute the first extreme view only.


The Blessed one replied to Sivaka:
"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans
."

Yet according to the Abhidhamma people it is said that all vipaka (resultant cittas) are caused by kamma.
Example in 'Abhidhamma in daily life' ( nina van Gorkom)that "when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we perform ourselves."

One might say hey, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong view, a view of kammic determinism, as per the sutta above.

However, this is perhaps a hasty conclusion: In the Abhidhamma - as has been explained in Abhidhamma in Daily Life- there are 4 types of cittas classified as jati. Vipaka(result), kiriya , akusala and kusala. In a process of cittas that experiences an object such as sound only one moment is vipaka, result. The rest are of the other jatis(not the result of kamma). The vipaka is like a flash and then many, many more moments that are not vipaka.

Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by kamma.

The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes that there is no single fruit from a single cause:

"for here there is no single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'[in the Sivaka sutta above] because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma and so on[/i]
."

[binocular]

I already posted suttas that say a rapist will be executed; that a society that rapes girls/women will decline; that whoever inflicts violence to the unarmed & inoffensive will be reborn in hell. Since the suttas refer to "protected" girls/women, obviously Buddhism does not excuse or ignore rape & other forms of sexual misconduct detrimental to women.

But what is the reasoning behind this? Was rape considered a crime against the woman, or a crime against her protector (father, uncle, brother, husband)?

[binocular]

The decision to rape is the decision of the rapists. Even a woman or man engaged in negligence such as being intoxicated, wandering the streets at unseemly hours or dressing provocatively does not make the decision to be raped. The decision to rape falls 100% upon the rapist.

The question is whether in ancient India, they were operating by this same line of reasoning. I'm under the impression that back then, they believed that women are the instigators of sexual impropriety and men the potential victims. (All those suttas with women who throw themselves on men ...)

That you were a rapist in a past life does not place the onus upon me to rape you in this present life.

Kamma works in mysterious ways ...

I have a hunch that the reasoning in a patriarchal, male-centred society would go more along the lines of "If you damage the women in my family, I will damage the women in your family, and if I can't do it in this lifetime, I'll do it in the next".

[DooDoot]

But what is the reasoning behind this? Was rape considered a crime against the woman, or a crime against her protector (father, uncle, brother, husband)?

Since Buddhism teaches universal loving-kindness & empathy, obviously rape is a crime against all of the above. Obviously a girl does not want to be raped nor does her father want his daughter to be raped. It appears you are offering the type of argument devised by Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Coker v. Georgia, which is said to have lead to greater leniency towards rape as a crime. Its difficult for me to comprehend how this descent (okkanti) into Cultural Marxist Feminism is actually serving the interests of women; let alone supporting filial love. It appears to be subversively dividing families and the natural order of filial love & relationships. It is giving the impression of being a rebel without a cause. I hope you don't start illogically accusing me of misogyny.

Kamma works in mysterious ways ...

But it doesn't. If it did, per the Buddha's refutation of your heretical idea in AN 3.61, people would be left "unprotected" & "confused" if it did.

I have a hunch that the reasoning in a patriarchal, male-centred society would go more along the lines of "If you damage the women in my family, I will damage the women in your family, and if I can't do it in this lifetime, I'll do it in the next".

Non-sequitur from a Buddhist perspective. I noticed a few videos on the internet where feminists in Europe are now calling on men to protect them from increasing rape threats but men ignore them. Buddhism teaches about interconnected and reciprocal obligations between men & women and parents & children (DN 31). If feminists ignore these then men will ignore the feminists and leave them alone to their own mischief. The Buddha firmly taught an immoral woman is expelled from the home (SN 37.30) & possibly community, possibly to become an outcast.

[binocular]

Since Buddhism teaches universal loving-kindness & empathy, obviously rape is a crime against all of the above. Obviously a girl does not want to be raped nor does her father want his daughter to be raped. It appears you are offering the type of argument devised by Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Coker v. Georgia, which is said to have lead to greater leniency towards rape as a crime. Its difficult for me to comprehend how your descent (okkanti) into Cultural Marxist Feminism is actually serving the interests of women; let alone supporting filial love. It appears you are intent on subversively dividing families and the natural order of filial love & relationships. You are giving the impression of being a rebel without a cause. I hope you don't start illogically accusing me of misogyny.

*hrmph*
I think Buddhism is a male-centred, male-supremacist religion, as is typical for Dhammic religions, and I'm trying to find explanations of rape that are in line with that.

The fact that in traditional societies, women who were raped were punished for it, is enough grounds for reasonable doubt that the ancient ideas of rape are commensurate with the modern ones. It seems possible that the ancient ideas of rape were markedly different than modern ones. Hey, they didn't even think of women as persons, and a daughter didn't count as a child in the equal way she does in modern law. So what can be expected of the ancients!

the natural order of filial love & relationships

Which is what? That women are inferior to men and must submit to them? And that this is not misogyny, but simply the plain and honest, obvious truth that all must abide by?

[DooDoot]

*hrmph*

I think Buddhism is a male-centred, male-supremacist religion, as is typical for Dhammic religions...

Men are supreme in monastic life and women are supreme in family life. In DN 31, its is said a husband serves & imparts authority to his wife. Since men are unable to make babies, obviously women are supreme at making babies, breast feeding & cleaning a child's excrement. However, some husbands enjoy cooking.

The fact that in traditional societies, women who were raped were punished for it

I have not read this in the Pali suttas.

Which is what?

The natural order is life is sustained by families. Families don't wish any of their members to be harmed, which includes rape.

[justindesilva]

Some of the unpleasant sensations experienced during and after the rape will be kamma-vipaka. The rapist choosing to rape you is not. Their unwholesome intentional action (for which they will suffer) merely provided the right conditions for unwholesome kamma-vipaka to ripen in the victim.

I have read the story of Uppalawanna who was a Therani ordained during the time of Budda. A dazzling beauty who had a boyfriend decided to get ordained. After being ordained the former boyfriend either tried or raped her in her solitude of meditation . This rapist is said to have been swallowed by the earth after rape attempt.
Uppalawanna had powers of iddi on a fire kasina meditation while after this incident Lord budda made vinaya rules to the effect that the theranis should not stay in solitude while they should stay close to residence of bikkus.
The story about rape of uppalawanna indicates that rapists undergo kamma vipaka.

[Bundokji]

The story about rape of uppalawanna indicates that rapists undergo kamma vipaka.

ًًWhat if the boyfriend let her go after ordination, would that also be kamma vipaka? and if so, then what is the point of calling it kamma vipaka?

[binocular]

The natural order is life is sustained by families. Families don't wish any of their members to be harmed, which includes rape.

Of course they don't wish for harm to come to their members. Which doesn't mean they are completely unprepared, practically and ideologically, for if and when such harm occurs.