I think the closest we get to an explicit definition of kamma is is AN 6.63:
“Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.”
I think that statement together with others makes it clear that kamma is action done with intention (which includes, but is not limited too, purely mental action.) It might also be plausible to include in the definition the further idea that action is only kamma if it bears fruit in the life of the agent who performs it. But it could be that we need not regard that as part of the very concept of kamma, but just a further fact about kamma.
With respect, the claim that the Buddha knew of such realms by having seen them for himself isn’t something you, yourself know, is it? It seems rather like an item of faith.
With respect, the claim that the Buddha knew of such realms by having seen them for himself isn’t something you, yourself know, is it? It seems rather like an item of faith.
[/quote]
Yes it can be characterized as an item of faith. I don’t see that as a bad thing nor do I try to hide it. Faith, or confidence if you prefer, is indispensable in every endeavor or view I can think of.
Your earlier post (#16) speaks of your belief in the reality of the Buddha’s awakening and of the goal, Nibbana. Awakening and Nibbana are not something you yourself know, are they? I should think not, given that you provided your views and interpretation of what those entail.
I fail to see the difference between your affirmative view of the existence of something you yourself do not know actually exists and my affirmative view of the existence of something I myself do not know actually exists.
I think the difference is this: By practicing in the way the Buddha taught, I have experienced the gradual diminution of suffering over time, the gradual lessening of worldly attachments and cravings, and the growth of inner peace. So while it is true that I can’t be certain that a state consisting in the complete liberation from craving, attachment and suffering exists, it does at least present itself as a viable possibility as a mere extrapolation from my own experience: it’s the state that obtains when that gradual lessening is continued all the way to total elimination. So when the Buddha, who based on this personal experience of mine is evidently an exceptional spiritual teacher, says the complete end of suffering can be reached because he himself reached it, that is a kind of testimony I can take seriously, because what he is describing is an extension of something I know for myself.
But I have never, as a result of pursuing the practice, experienced any state that I would literally regard as contact with a deva realm or a brahma realm. (I have experienced very blissful states, but there was nothing about those states that made me think I had literally penetrated into another realm, much less a realm with actual devas or brahmas in it.) So there is nothing in my experience which would allow me to treat testimony about such realms as plausible, since these worlds of brahmas and devas don’t just seem to be further extensions of states I have already achieved.
It seems more plausible to me, then, to assume in this case that the Buddha, like many “seers”, visionaries, poets and artistic dreamers throughout history, was not beyond misinterpreting the concoctions of his own powerful dreams and imagination as the actual denizens of other worlds. Another possible view is that, again like other great visionary poets and literary artists, he taught some important lessons for the benefit of others by referring to a figurative and imaginative landscape of characters and anthropomorphic symbols that he did not himself take literally.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this. Maybe tonight while meditating I will have a cogent discussion with something that seems like a deva. That would certainly give me a new perspective. But until then, it seems to me that I can continue profitably following the path of practice the Buddha taught, aiming at the cessation of suffering in the here and now, without worrying about what might or might not exist in other realms or other lifetimes.
As far as I am concerned, metaphysical agnosticism is fine. At the same time, the fact that the Buddha taught rebirth means we should carefully consider the possibility that it might actually be true.
But would it not be helpful if the pathfinder knew the extent and the nature of the fire? You might choose the wrong sort of refuge if you have the wrong sort of information. I think this is the real issue here.
It seems to me that according to the suttas it is possible understand rebirth without any extrasensory attainment. Seeing rebirth is all about understanding causality, understanding that the mind cannot stop without making an end of craving. The idea of continued existence after death follows from that. This may well be the normal way of seeing rebirth.
Well, we owe it to people to be straight up about what the Buddha taught. I think that’s my responsibility as a Buddhist monastic. Otherwise I’d feel like a fraud.
Maybe the bliss is literally the realm (‘loka’), as described in MN 95
Udayi, is there a world (loka) of only pleasantness? Is there a course of actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?
Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world (lokassa) of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa).
MN 1 and AN 4.123 each refer to various jhanas as various brahma & god realms.
You might want to read a little further in AN 6.63 and also SN 12.15, which both state kamma only comes into play due to sense contact.
Yes, I admit that is definitely a possibility, and something I could imagine becoming convinced about if some different kind of evidence presented itself. But it isn’t anything that can be determined from the nature of the experience itself (at least not from my experience). It depends on an extra layer of interpretation.
On the other hand, knowing that when I get deeply absorbed in meditation I am suffering less than I was when I sat down to meditate, is not something that requires an extra layer of interpretation. It’s immediately obvious.
That’s why I give more weight to the Buddha’s testimony about suffering and the end of suffering than I do to his testimony about other realms.
Exactly what “evidence” could there be (apart from your own experience)?
Really? Why? If you (the mind) abided for hours in jhana, you would realise jhana is not an ‘ordinary’ realm of experience but another realm of experience different to or surpassing the ordinary
Jhanic bliss is also immediately obvious when it is reached.
This sounds like a mental tendency towards atheism rather than conviction in the Buddha.
There are obviously different realms of mental experience in life, such as bliss (heaven), suffering (hell), stupidity & blind reactiveness (animal), addiction (hungry ghost) and reflective wisdom (human). Why would the Buddha deny what is plain & obvious? Even non-Buddhists call murderers, rapists, etc, words such as “animal”, “beast” and “not-human”.
Personally, I am not really sure what you are arguing about? Anyway, I better return to work.
Well, Bhante, at the risk of stretching the metaphor too far, if the refuge is to be found at some location not too far away in the center of the forest, then it doesn’t seem to matter whether the radius of the fire is 10 yojanas or 10,000 yojanas.
I understand the Buddha to have taught that the ultimate refuge lies in the present moment, when there is no further thought of the future or reminiscence about the past, and no longer even any any grasping - like a monkey grasping at branches - at the arising and passing away of present moment mental contents; and where there is no longer any conceit of a self, or any process of I-making and my-making.
Fair enough. Yes, I have no problem in interpreting meditative absorption as “realms” of my own possible psychological experience. But at this point, I have no reason to think that they are independent realms in which real other beings abide, even when I am not experiencing them.
The only difference I see is that you don’t extrapolate as far as I do. I extrapolate from my own experience the existence of other realms based, in part, on my own experience in this realm and the other realm anyone can easily observe: the animal realm. No meditation was required.
I think this shows a fundamental difference between how you and I perceive the Buddha’s wisdom. I don’t see him as being capable of being so thoroughly fooled by his own mind. Nor do I see him capable of the kind of deception you describe.
It seems that our different perceptions of his wisdom contribute to our different views of his teachings on rebirth.
I always say, as far as spiritual practice goes: do what works best for you.
We don’t have to think that. But, can such suffering be explained by ordinary reasons alone ? Like socio-economic reasons, environmental conditioning etc. There are billions of beings inhabiting this planet, how can a single individual’s misery be explained or justified ? It seems terribly cold-hearted and callous to think that misery could be self-made in innocent beings, but can you negate the reasoning that birth is the fundamental cause for all pain ?
Trying to reduce the Dhamma to a moral or ethical system that can be used in this lifetime alone removes all possibility of understanding inequality and unfairness in existence. It can be used to alleviate one’s suffering, but there are many systems which aim to do the same, with varying degrees of success and the Dhamma would be no different.
I think the key difference is the Buddha’s penetrative understanding of kamma which makes him say:
This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time - crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing - not the water in the four great oceans.
AN 3.61 negates it, which states pleasure & pain do not come from past kamma.
Dhp 137 negates it, which states there are innocent victims:
137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states:
138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges, loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
AN 3.61 seems to refute this theory & seems to teach the very opposite. AN 3.61 seems to state past life theory removes all possibility of understanding inequality and unfairness in existence.
[quote=“Sujith, post:56, topic:3811”]I think the key difference is the Buddha’s penetrative understanding of kamma which makes him say:
This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time - crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing - not the water in the four great oceans.
[/quote]
What appears to be a metaphor here does not appear to be related to kamma. Bad kamma in the EBTs is generally about killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, wrong speech, greed, hatred & selfish ingratitude (delusion) rather than about grieving for the loss of loved ones. In fact, to make meritorious offerings for the benefit of deceased family members is good kamma (per DN 31).
The sutta ends with a directive for this present life as follows:
Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.
[quote=“Deeele, post:57, topic:3811”][quote=“Sujith”]
It seems terribly cold-hearted and callous to think that misery could be self-made in innocent beings, but can you negate the reasoning that birth is the fundamental cause for all pain ?[/quote]
AN 3.61 negates it, which states pleasure & pain do not come from past kamma.
[/quote]
Birth can be seen as a fundamental cause of dukkha. This is said directly in AN 10.65.
AN 3.61 doesn’t negate that. The wrong view there is that “all feelings are caused by what is done in the past.” That doesn’t preclude the possibility that some feelings are caused by what is done in the past. I read their wrong view and the other 2 wrong views in that sutta as doctrines of fatalism.
Ven. Brahmali also reads it as a doctrine of fatalism, but with an even more convincing explanation that Ven. Bodhi appears to agree with. See Ven. Bodhi’s note on the passage in his translation. If you or someone else doesn’t have it and are interested, I can reproduce it here.
The Pali term you are referring to is ‘abhinibbatti’, which is one of the dozen or so terms the scholars claim to mean ‘rebirth’. I doubt the Buddha would have used a dozen terms to refer to the same thing. I would suggest you need to offer more than merely copying & pasting a questionable translation of the words ‘abhinibbatti’ & ‘anabhinibbatti’.
When, friend, there is abhinibbatti, this pain is to be expected: cold and heat, hunger and thirst, excrement and urine, contact with fire, contact with punishment, contact with weapons, and anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. AN 10.65
Your interpretation of AN 10.65 is highly questionable, when compared to MN 2, which states:
What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring MN 2
MN 2 seems to show the translation or interpretation of AN 10.65 is inaccurate since the abandoning of the taints (asava) is a synonym for dukkha nirodha & NIbbana.
The sutta is actually about kamma, i…e, what should be done & what should not be done. Feelings in themselves are not suffering, as stated in many places, such as MN 37, MN 38, MN 149, Iti 44, SN 36.6 & in AN 3.61, which describes the 18 explorations of the mind (based on the 18 feelings).
Note: Please do not quote that sutta that states: “All feelings are unsatisfactory”. The 2nd characteristic of ‘unsatisfactoriness’ is not the ‘suffering’ of the 1st noble truth. They are different things, just as “dukkha-vedana” is not “suffering feelings”. The word “dukkha” has different meanings in different contexts.
More important, the beginning of AN 3.61 is not about feelings anyway, since the term ‘vedana’ is not found there. The Pali is:
When this terminology ‘paṭisaṃvedeti’ is used, it is referring to “experiencing happiness & suffering” as a broad term, rather than to specific vedana/feelings that arise at specifically at sense contact prior to craving. For example, this terminology is found in MN 149, which refers the fruition of Dependent Origination, as follows:
When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences (paṭisaṃvedeti) bodily and mental suffering.
I would suggest with AN 3.61, the translators probably have made another error here. The translators are not experts sent to earth by God. They are just ordinary people, like you & me, groping in the dark, similar to the long line of blind Brahman priests who follow what their forefathers taught about Pali. They generally all fall back on the same Pali dictionaries. In reality, the meaning of words can probably only be fully understood in context.
In my opinion, it is not virtuous or appropriate to cite venerable bhikkhus as support in the situation when our own views are highly tenuous , because this may bring disrepute upon those bhikkhus. Instead, you should make your own arguments based in the reported or alleged words of the Buddha.
For example, if Bhikkhu Bodhi truly believes the experiences of happiness & suffering (paṭisaṃvedeti sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ) are determined by past life kamma, why is Bhikkhu Bodhi so strongly dedicated to social activism? What change could Bhikkhu Bodhi’s efforts bring?
In short, I could not really grasp why you introduced ‘fatalism’ into the discussion? It seems like whatever Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote is being referred to in a ritualistic way.
Kamma-vipaka arises dependent on sense contact according to AN 6.63 and SN 12.15.
Thanks, but I’ll trust Ven. Bodhi’s knowledge of Pali over yours.
As for your other views, I don’t think addressing them will be fruitful or a good use of time. I’ll just copy-paste what I wrote before, which is where I think the primary conditioning of your views is found.
