SuttaCentral
I recently read two suttas, MN135 - A Brief Analysis of Acts and AN 3.100 Lump of salt.
In the first sutta, the Buddha makes it clear that if one performs such and such an act, he will meet with this and that. In the second sutta he says, on the contrary, that we should not make hasty judgements because the results of kamma depend on many factors and the same act can have completely different results.
How should we understand this?
The first sutta is primarily about the category of results. The second sutta is about degree of result. Even the first sutta talks about degree of result in a way, e.g. hell in one extreme and short life at the other.
The approach that the first sutta speaks only of a category of results does not answer the question that it is very misleading about kamma, one can clearly see in it a certain radicalism that the second sutta warns against, plus to that it imposes a great narrowing of results that can be misleading.
‘Take some woman or man who does not give ascetics or brahmins such things as food, drink, clothing, vehicles; garlands, fragrance and make-up; and bed, house and lighting. Because of undertaking such acts, after death they are reborn in a place of perdition … or if they return to the realm of men, they are poor …'.
The sutta states that the reason for being poor is not to give alms to ascetics, but suspects that there are certainly other reasons, such as stealing from others, cheating, etc. The same goes for explaining why someone is ugly, they may be bad, but mutilating someone, for example, would make more sense. This sutta MN135 gives a very wrong idea about kamma, very misleading. That is why I wonder what happened here.
It doesn’t give a wrong idea about karma, just a simplified explanation.
You can’t expect the Buddha to list off every possible conceivable reason for each result, can you? Keep in mind AN4.77 Acinteyya sutta.
The answer to your question is intent. You may not control outcomes but you are accountable to your intent (there is at least one sutta in which Buddha identifies cetana with kamma) and that is action in speech, thought and deed. I think there is also at least one sutta in which cetana is identified as (a) sankhara.
AN6.63 Nibbedhika
(found with the CIPS)
Exactly so, oversimplification or generalisation is one of the most common cognitive errors that causes much misunderstanding. After reading this sutta, and not reading any other sutta, one gets the impression that kamma in the Buddhist sense is no different from that undergone by Jainists or Hindus. Then we come to statements such as if someone is born disabled, it means that they have harmed others in the past. I think this sutta has a kind of a second bottom, Bikhu Bodhi in his commentary on the sutta said that Subha had a father who because of his stinginess and disrespect for ascetics will be reborn in hell. I wondered if maybe this is one of the stories where the teaching is very narrowed down to only what a particular recipient needs to hear in order to warn them specifically about the things they are prone to, but that is just my guess. I thought maybe someone knew the exact story related to Subha and the specific context.
I think it is always safe to assume that not every sutta contains all the facts about any given topic.
Whether or not it is targeted at a specific person is kind of secondary. In this situation I don’t believe there is anything in the commentary that would explain the Buddha’s specific answer. This sutta is supposedly given after the Buddha already demonstrates how his father was reborn as a dog.
Getting into the notion of skilful means, which is a big part of mahayana, recognized as a potentially abusive method of teaching and therefore highly restricted. You raised a good point, Buddha had empathy and taught all sorts of different people so as to help them where they were at.
I would treat MN135 as a neyyattha teaching, that is, one whose meaning requires interpretive expansion. It can then be harmonized with AN3.100 by the addition of a ceteris paribus.
In other words, the MN sutta is describing the outcomes that can be expected of particular wholesome and unwholesome actions, all other things being equal, while the AN sutta is pointing out that all other things are not always equal.
There are also sutta’s that state that kamma, as former intentional deeds, are one possible category of causes for the arising/ripening of misery, illnesses, unpleasant feelings. Also other causes are described, such as: medical causes (problems in the system of wind, bile and phlegm), climatical causes, careless behaviour.
Still, i know a lot of buddhist see kamma as some deeper cause. Maybe that is true, i do not know. But if Buddha is asked to explain why this or that happens, it seems he -always?-gives an explanation in terms of what someone has done earlier?
I think it is also quit obvious that even when there are medical causes for some illness, suppose lungcancer, one can also not exclude the intent to smoke and have the view that smoking is like rewarding oneself. Is that intent, that choice to smoke not even a more deeper cause for the misery? So medical causes and kamma as cause, can this be seperated? And is one not careles because of kamma?
What i find most important, and truthful, is that intention arises with a certain understanding or view as condition. First factor is view or understanding.
And the sutta’s teach, when this view is wrong, then it also does not matter if one has good intentions, the result will be misery, not what is wished for.
View is much more important then intention when it comes down to the outcome of deeds. It is a bit strange that people think the kind of intention is most important because nor reality nor the teachings support this.
With good intentions one can create a huge mess. The Path to hell is paved with good intentions. If i have a good intention to care for a sick animal but i have no expertise, i will probably become a cause for its increasing misery and death.
And why would i be at peace with having good intentions? That is like taking no responsibility, i feel.
Thank you this explanation makes sense as well as the fact that one should not assume that every sutta will explain everything in detail as well as that a particular sutta may have originated in a very specific context for a particular person. I think all these things together make a lot of sense! Thank you 
Thank you, what you say makes a lot of sense.
Hi,
I have made a quick search for those sutta’s that distinguish different causes for illnesses, bad feeling, discomfort:
SN36.21
AN4.87
AN5.104
AN10.60,
for if you want to check this yourself.
Thank you very much. That’s super nice of you. Will study with curiosity .