MN136: which deeds are ineffective?

Q & A
1

MN136 is a sutta that explains the effects of deeds in a differentiated way. As I understand it, it basically says that deeds are always effective, even if they appear ineffective; they show their results either “in this very life, or in the next life, or in some subsequent period”. So if you see a person doing good deeds all their life and then being reborn in hell, that doesn’t mean there is no effect of kamma. It just doesn’t show immediately, but it will show at some point.

Then the sutta closes with the curious sentence:

MN136:21.1: Iti kho, ānanda, atthi kammaṁ abhabbaṁ abhabbābhāsaṁ, atthi kammaṁ abhabbaṁ bhabbābhāsaṁ, atthi kammaṁ bhabbañceva bhabbābhāsañca, atthi kammaṁ bhabbaṁ abhabbābhāsan”ti.
So, Ānanda, there are deeds that are ineffective and appear ineffective. There are deeds that are ineffective but appear effective. There are deeds that are effective and appear effective. And there are deeds that are effective but appear ineffective.”

At which Ānanda is satisfied and approves what the Buddha said.

To me however the question arises: Where do the ineffective deeds come from, when we’ve just heard that they are always effective, even if they appear ineffective? That means, while the last two statements of this passage make total sense in view of this sutta, the first two are not at all clear to me. Am I just like the wanderers of other religions, of whom the Buddha says (earlier in the same sutta):

MN136:6.14: Still, who are those foolish and incompetent wanderers of other religions to understand the Realized One’s great analysis of deeds?

Does anyone have an idea how to understand this? Bhante @sujato , Ajahn @Brahmali , I’d also like to hear your take on it. (Bhante, you don’t have a note on the relevant segment.)

Thank you! :folded_hands:

3 Likes
2

I would think that this teaching was summarised with a tetralemma at some point (as is pretty standard for the suttas from what I’ve seen), accidentally contradicting the original teaching by doing so because it says ineffective deeds do not exist. Presumably some reciter didn’t pick up on the implications of summarising it in that way, like at MN142:7.9 where the Bhikkhuni Sangha is mentioned despite the story claiming that it didn’t exist yet.

1 Like
3

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi quotes the commentary as follows:

The second explanation, which seems more cogent, takes - ābhāsa to mean “appears,” which I follow in the translation. On this explanation, the first type is illustrated by the person who kills living beings and is reborn in hell: his action is incapable (of good result) because it is unwholesome, and it appears incapable because, since he is reborn in hell, it seems to be the cause for his rebirth there. The second is illustrated by the person who kills living beings and is reborn in heaven: his action is incapable (of good result) because it is unwholesome, yet it appears capable because he is reborn in heaven; thus to the outside recluses and brahmins it seems to be the cause for his rebirth in heaven. The remaining two terms should be understood along the same lines, with appropriate changes.

This seems to me to be the most likely explanation because it is closely related to the content of the sutta. Does this work for you?

4 Likes
4

That’s the only thing we could think of when we discussed this sutta in our local group yesterday, that some error in transmission might have occurred …

Yes indeed. So it seems the terms bhabba and abhabba are not so much about efficacy of deeds, but rather about their capacity of producing good results???

At least this makes sense in light of the sutta. Although it’s not what I would intuitively understand by “effective” and “ineffective”. So perhaps another translation choice could be helpful … :thinking:

Thank you for replying!

3 Likes
5

Yes, and it makes sense that the last paragraph should be a summary of the content of the sutta. The suttas often have this kind of structure.

The word bhabba usually means “capable of”, which is close in meaning to “effective”. In either case a degree of interpretation is required, and I agree it would be helpful to have note. It is hardly surprising that a summary statement should be a bit cryptic. It will obviously have to contract the information in the sutta in one way or another.

3 Likes
6

Yes, that is true. Often, such “summary recitals” are given at the beginning of a sutta, and the protagonists either ask for clarification immediately, or they go to some other monastic to ask for interpretation. Just remember the opening passage of the teaching in MN140 which also sounds cryptic enough:

This person has six elements, six fields of contact, eighteen mental preoccupations, and four foundations. Where they stand, the streams of conceiving do not flow. And where the streams of conceiving do not flow, they are called a sage at peace. Do not neglect wisdom; preserve truth; foster generosity; and train only for peace.

In this light the sentence in MN136 makes much more sense. Thank you again!

4 Likes