“Abhaya, these three kinds of purification by wearing away have been rightly explained by the Blessed One, who knows and sees, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment. What three?
It’s when, Abhaya, a mendicant is ethical, restrained in the code of conduct, conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They don’t perform any new deeds, and old deeds are eliminated by experiencing their results little by little. This wearing away is visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves. AN 3.74
And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re content, kind-hearted, with right view. These are called bright deeds with bright results. AN 4.236
The part “They don’t perform any new deeds, and old deeds are eliminated by experiencing their results little by little” sounds as if a bhikkhu wouldn’t do bright action, but since they avoid killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct, wouldn’t it be regarded as bright action? Or is neither dark nor bright deeds different only because there’s the intention to bring about the end of kamma instead of future results?
To put this in context, the investigation of dark and bright deeds is the second factor of awakening, and so covers the development of practice from beginning to end:
“And what is the food for the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of analysis of qualities… once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that are skillful & unskillful, blameworthy & blameless, gross & refined, siding with darkness & with light. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of analysis of qualities… once it has arisen.”—SN 46.51
Investigation is directly connected to development of transcendent right view:
“And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.”—MN 117
Hi Mike. The next sutta AN 4.237 explains in more detail.
And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds? Right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.
This seems to mean doing kamma together with the right view of not-self; so there is no attachment to the kamma.
Yes, i guess, here one must also distinguish noble path from mundane path, because, mundane right views and intentions etc., i believe, are part of bright kamma. MN117 treats this difference.
What does it mean in a practical sense? I like to believe a pure or noble deed is not like some kind of investment. It is not a strategical choice. One does not think about ones own profit. It is straight from the heart. What do you think of this?
Thank you for all replies. They clarified a lot! Now I’m confused only because of the following:
So what differentiates neither bright nor dark kamma from bright kamma is the attachment involved. What about merit? In Itv 22 the Buddha tells monks not to fear meritorious deeds because they lead to good results, but if they actually lead to good results, then they are bright kamma. If so, why does AN 3.74 say that one looking for awakening “don’t perform any new deeds”?
Edit: rephrasing my question: should a person pursuing awakening do only neither bright nor dark kamma or is it okay to do bright kamma? Maybe my confusion comes from how I interpreted AN 3.74 as someone pursuing awakening… maybe that is actually referring to arahats?
As i think to understand the teachings it is tanha that sustains the rebirth process. And it is kamma which determines the rebirth destiny.
I think, merit is always good and protective because as long as tanha exist and rebirth continues that merit will lead to happiness, good rebirth and demerit to misery.
And IF tanha ends for you in this life, kamma cannot determine a new rebirth anymore. But i think kamma can still ripen in this life. So, also then merit is oke to have.
I would think there is no problem in bright deeds, but, if, for example, performing bright deeds sustains a kind of craving, tanha, and one makes no end to that craving, than i think one misses target.
Probably performing bright deeds also has some expactation, some craving in it.
For example. Do we not often do good because it makes us feel good? I can imagine that one also gives with a kind of craving for results.
Do not perform any new deeds, may refer to this? Or maybe it just refers to not performing any new bad deeds?
It depends. On the path it’s neither-bright-nor-dark. On the way to the path then it’s bright. The crossover is ‘right view’ - the first fold of the path. AN 4.236 has right view at the culmination of bright:
And they’re content, kind-hearted, with right view. These are called bright deeds with bright results.
Thank you. This is very explanatory.
Btw, what about wholesome and unwholesome? Since bright, dark, and both dark and bright kamma depend on the taints, would they be called unwholesome? Because, according to the AN 3.69, the taints are the roots of what is unwholesome. Or is it that bright kamma (even though has the taints) is majorly rooted on non-greed, non-aversion, or non-delusion?
Moreover, what would be the relationship between wholesome-unwholesome and bright, dark, both, and neither kamma? For example, is bright and neither kamma wholesome whereas dark and both kamma unwholesome?
Thank you. What I think it is straight from the heart with Right View. Right View seems to be saying the goal is to be free from attachment & unwholesome desires in everything that is done. Therefore, the three moral/kamma components/factors plus the thought/mental kamma component/factor of The Path naturally will be without attachment & unwholesomeness. The fact seems to be the Noble Practitioner still must act (do kamma) in life; they still must speak; must engaged in livelihood and are also subject to sense contacts relating to potential killing, stealing & sexuality. For example, the suttas report monks were murdered when spreading the teachings; therefore the teaching of MN 21 where a monk cannot even kill in self-defense. All of these kammic Path factors seem established in the maintenance of non-attachment.
I think you nailed it here. Pretty much the 10 precepts (wholesome) are considered as bright karma; the opposites of 10 precepts (unwholesome) are dark karma.
Dark karma destination is Hell
Bright karma = Devas such Subhakinha
Dark & bright Karma = Human, some devas, some beings in underworlds (ghost realm)
Neither dark or bright karma = leading to end of suffering (nibanna). No other religions teach this except Buddhism.
For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the [kamma] law of sin and death. Romans 8:2
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the [Kamma] Law. 1 Corinthians 15:56
Nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the [Kamma] Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Galatians 2:16
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the [Kamma] Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— Galatians 3:13
When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate. I understood how beings pass on according to their actions thus: ‘These worthy beings who were ill conducted in body, speech, and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well conducted in body, speech, and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.’ Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and I understood how beings pass on according to their actions. MN 4
The 10 precepts are negative / non-doing though, like no killing, no stealing, no wrong speech, no drugs, no entertainment, etc…
so they don’t lead to bright kamma, they lead to non-activity. Kamma means action, vipaka means result.
So there’s bright actions, dark actions, and non-action.
Bright action is feeding an ariya, for example. There’s a sutta that orders the levels of bright actions with the lowest being helping an animal.
AN 4.236 is a little confusing, it says the precepts are bright deeds but neither dark nor bright is giving up the intention for deeds.
And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds? It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.
Perhaps intention is the main factor, maybe one has an intention to not harm beings, but someone without conceit has no intention at all.
Delusion is one of the 3 poisons, and delusion (moha) means conceit, aka “I am”, so as long as bright actions/deeds are done with conceit, then they’re not entirely wholesome.
From the Ariyan standpoint, causing dukkha to oneself is unwholesome and that’s what conceit/delusion does. That’s why suicide can be blameless if it’s done without conceit, and thus done without dukkha.
Self-view and conceit drive craving which drives dukkha, so those are the roots of unwholesomeness.
. “When a noble disciple has thus understood the taints, the origin of the taints, the cessation of the taints, and the way leading to the cessation of the taints, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am,’ and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma.”
I think SN12.51 suggests that both meritorious and demeritorious formations arise with avijja as condition.
Is this the same as rooted in lobha, dosa and moha? I do not think so. Because such deeds rooted in lobha, dosa and moha are not meritorious, right?
So, i believe we have to see what it really means when a deed is greed-, hate-, and delusion-rooted?
For example, suppose i give a monk on almsroute food. I respect the Sanga. While i am preparing food and while giving the food and afterwarts, i think: ‘may the merit of this deed give me a good rebirth’…it this a greed-based deed? Is it rooted in lobha?
I do not think sutta’s see it this way. They do see it as a good deed, even when i give as an investment. So, this probably also means that lobha as root for unwholesome kamma, is not the same as ‘rooted in any longing or expactation’. I do not think that the sutta’s teach that any expactation or longing one has from a deed, means that it becomes a lobha-rooted deed. How do you see this?
I suppose it is the same with delusion (moha). As a root of kamma that ripens in suffering, i think it is not the same as avijja. Because, as far as i know moha does not give rise to meritorious formations while avijja can.
I think the kind of meritorious and demeritorious volitional formations that arise with avijja as condition, arise as part of ones dispostion, make-up, out of habit, conditionally. Once arising they determine ones thinking, speech and actions in a more or less not free, conditioned, way. On auto-pilot as it were one reacts. Machine-like. It is like a snowball-effect.
For example, one can out of habitual force always help others which are in problems. Immediately act when one sees someone in problem. This does not mean that this is always good for that person one helps. For example, we ourselves have to learn dealing with problems.
But, has a Buddha no intentions at all? No plans? I doubt that. For example, he was not intent on teachings but later he was. Did he no plan at all? To walk? To retreat? To help?
This explains a lot! Indeed, the texts seem to imply that there is a big difference between what is rooted in the taints and what is conditioned by them. All kamma is conditioned by them, but only unwholesome intentions (dark and both dark and bright kamma) are rooted in the taints. Besides, wholesome and unwholesome seem to be broader than kamma since, I think, they may include traits of the mind.
You also reminded me of another sutta that shows how desire and conceit may be wholesome if used appropriately:
This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. AN 4:159
Given that this usage is part of the path, it would be included in neither bright nor dark kamma, I think. Even though desire and conceit are included among the taints, the way that they are used to attain arahatship is actually rooted in wisdom.
But the Buddha said the opposite of what you said. See below.
“And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. These are called bright deeds with bright results.” AN4.235
“And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind…” AN4.233
“Householders, unprincipled and immoral conduct is threefold by way of body, fourfold by way of speech, and threefold by way of mind…” MN41
The Buddha does not break the precepts yet he does not generate kamma, so obviously keeping the precepts alone is not enough to make good kamma.
I said non-doing (including non-intending) means no actions/kamma. 2 of the suttas you quoted talk about doing things pleasantly (wholesomely), that’s different than what I was originally talking about which was a response to the one you made that simply not doing bad things is a good deed, and my response was that the precepts are about not doing unwholesome things, not about doing wholesome things, they’re negative rules.
I also addressed the contradiction in the AN 4.236 sutta in the second half of my comment
What’s the difference between giving up intention for deeds that result in neither bright nor dark kamma, and not doing unwholesome acts that break the 5 precepts? I take that to mean that conceit is given up at the time the intention is made so it’s not really an “intention” anymore.
Your second sutta quote kind of implies that
And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind” AN4.233
Someone “makes” an intention, and in this case a pleasing one. So an action here is made.
