I was reading about vinaya in a book and it said that if you braek parajika you go to one hell realm, and if break sanghadisesa you go to another hell realm or maybe animal realm.
Does this idea have validity in the early Buddhist texts? What is the kamma of breaking patimokkha rules?
thank you all
in the suttas i didn’t come across association between moral retribution and Vinaya rules
in all instances of hell being promised i’ve come across it was in connection with violation of principles of virtuous conduct, the so called 10 wholesome actions/deeds
but insofar as parajikas overlap with several of those 10 it follows that the outcome of their violation is birth in hell
if during ordination ceremony the novice promises to keep the Vinaya then i believe the kamma of Vinaya rules violation must be in the area of false speech, but i’m not sure that’s even a condition for ordination
in any case since Vinaya isn’t a moral code, but a code of conduct, i don’t think there’s direct causal relationship between its violation and kammic results
Yes, in agreement with LXNDR, there is no direct relationship between breaking specific Vinaya rules and particular kammic results. Any book that says otherwise is nonsense and should be dismissed.
The categories of Vinaya offenses are broad, and encompass many kinds of things. Lighting a fire to warm myself, and beating a man to within an inch of his life both incur a pacittiya offence. Well, maybe multiple pacittiyas in the latter case. Or again, sitting down too quickly on a bed with detachable legs in an upper story loft is a pacittiya. So is clubbing baby seals to death.
The same applies to other categories. Serious transgressions such as sexual harassment or creating a schism in the Sangha are sanghadisesas. So is building a hut too large.
Even when it comes to parajikas, it is very easy to break the parajika for stealing, for example. If I lift an item up with the intention to steal it, that is parajika already, even if I immediately replace it.
Not only is there no relation between offences and kammic results specified in the text, the commentary clearly distinguishes between those offences that are intrinsically immoral and those that are only wrong by convention. So, for example, I commit a pacittiya for using a robe that has not been disfigured by marking it. Or else another pacittiya if I eat after noon. But these are not immoral at all, there is no intrinsic ethical problem with them, they are mere procedures for managing the community.
In most cases, if an offence is confessed and the procedures for rehabilitation are followed, there is no reason to think it will have any kammic consequences. Obviously this is not the case if the offence is serious.
ok thank you.
so is there also good kamma of becoming a monk? because some people say that to become a monk you will make good kamma.
Absolutely, if your intentions are pure, the becoming a monastic is a huge act of renunciation.
In my current opinion and as I have read:
Any intentional thought/word/deed is kamma.
Cetana(thoughts) = Kamma ; according to “Cetanaham bhikkhawe kammam vadami”.
Therefore any intentional thought is kamma. Any deed or talk done with intentional thought is kamma.
Good kammas lead to good results and bad kammas lead to bad results.
Loka vajja apattis cause relevant kammas while Pannatti vajja apattis cause the kamma of ana vitikkamana (the kamma of breaking the command of the Blessed One Buddha.)
This kamma of breaking the Buddha law (ana vitikkamana) will never be a good kamma. It is categorically a bad kamma, though we can’t accurately assess the level of it.
Although one can be purified after committing a non-parajika apatti, the kamma remains. Committed kamma cannot be changed by anyone by any means though the effect of the kamma can be minimized using the method of the Lona phala sutta. (; according to above reasons and “yam kammam karissami kalyanam va papakam va tassa dayado bhavissasmi” in Dasadhamma sutta.)
Therefore any act of breaking a patimokkha rule (intentionally) is a bad kamma and is dukkha whether it is done knowing or unknowing the rules.
Even when the noble Arahants doing little things unintentionally, it gives bad results. (Blessed one have once said somewhere, “If an Arahant refrain from doing bhavana any further, he have to lose his viveka by involving with works” or something similar to that.)
Therefore when we break (intentionally) any of the patimokkha rules, knowing or unknowing it to be a rule, it is definitely a bad kamma leading to a bad result.