Which Sutta says that human realm is the best realm to practice the dhamma?

[LXNDR]

@Jesse

Based on this, to me it seems possible for spiritual progress to have definite effects without saying that rebirth kamma is fully deterministic.

it is at least deterministic to the degree you have come to agree with

@Jesse

My best interpretation is that there are degrees of causal efficacy. Just as a mango seed cannot make an avocado tree, a non-returner cannot be reborn anywhere except into the pure abodes. However, just because a mango seed can only become a mango tree does not tell us everything we need to know about that tree. The characterisitics of that tree will be based on its genetics, the soil, the water, the sun etc.

which essentially is what i said

[LXNDR]

@Brahmali

This is imprecise, and in fact not quite correct.

bhante, you quoted another user’s message as if it were mine

but to follow up with my own view, the Buddha’s short statement before the entire exposition, namely

“Student, beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions; they originate from their actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior.”

could mean that all the listed results are necessarily caused by the individual kamma of the sort described and in the sutta there’s nothing to suggest that kamma is only one possible reason for these results

[Jesse]

@LXNDR

which essentially is what i said

I am not sure if it is the same, let me give an example and let me know what you think:

There are obvious cases, like for a non-returner, whose rebirth is very specific, that we agree on. Let us consider someone who is just a regular person. The original issue was that of chance. The point of our difference was that a regular person may very well may not be reborn a human, even if they have made good kamma, and that there is chance involved in that outcome. The reason there is chance is that the particular kamma that ripens at rebirth is not deterministic and that process is intertwined with other non-kammic causes. Even in the case of a stream enterer their particular place of birth can vary, all that can be predicted is that it won’t be in the lower realms.

[daverupa]

AN 5.57

(5) “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

I’m not sure that trying to assess the kamma-specifics of a human birth is really on point. One ought to use this sort of reflection to support a motivation for proper conduct, not to chart kamma-pathways in the cosmos.

And what about those other four reflections which should often be reflected upon? They seem to be left by the wayside more often than not, in favor of these wild kamma-conjectures…

Honestly, just how much Iron Age Indian cosmology is an essential component of the Dhamma?

[Jesse]

I agree with the part about reflecting wisely on the Dhamma, it is critical to practice.

However, I think you have missed an important underlying question. I don’t care about Indian cosmology as you say, I was never addressing trying to chart or conjecture where someone is reborn. I was discussing which factors can influence outcomes. This is an area of great misunderstanding in Buddhism. Many people believe kamma is deterministic which can cause them great suffering and hurt their practice and mental stability. They can feel trapped by their past. This is important to address in my mind and is not an issue of flights of speculation which I agree are pointless.

[LXNDR]

@Jesse

The point of our difference was that a regular person may very well may not be reborn a human, even if they have made good kamma, and that there is chance involved in that outcome.

in my opinion if there IS kamma which is to ripen as a human birth it’s exactly how it will ripen if not the next time, which is very likely, then at some point in the future, it’s just that it ripens nonlineary

or should we conclude that for noble persons kamma works differently than for worldlings producing a bit more predictable results? if so, what would warrant such a conclusion?

[daverupa]

@Jesse

I was discussing which factors can influence outcomes. This is an area of great misunderstanding in Buddhism. Many people believe kamma is deterministic which can cause them great suffering and hurt their practice and mental stability. They can feel trapped by their past.

Well, SN 36.21 addresses that directly (as does AN 3.61 & MN 101).

MN 2, and Sutta discussions of careful attention in general, further highlight the inappropriate nature of such pursuits ("where did I come from " & “where am I going” & so forth).

Frankly, if contemplating kamma does not support energy for practice, it’s an idle set of ideas not worth engaging; once there is a motive for Sila, there’s no place for such metaphysics at all - and since Sila is usually already in place (religion gets its morals from humans, not the other way 'round), there may not even have been a need for these ideas; one can bring one’s Sila into alignment with the Dhamma without all this superstructure.

Is human birth chance? Kamma? Both? The answer is: it’s happened, it’s dukkha, so get on with the practice.

[Brahmali]

I knew it wasn’t your message. It’s just how the quote function works.

I still think getting the causality in the relationship between kamma and its fruit is very important. The traditional understanding, which seems to be what you quote, gives rise to too many problems. And it even contradicts the fact that the suttas list a number of factors of natural causality, as given by Daverupa.