Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The kamma of killing—intention actions versus unintentional actions.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Palzang,
Forgive me for disagreeing with you once again, and being the proverbial thorn in your side in general, but I have to at least mention a couple of my personal beliefs that might contradict what you are saying. While I agree that killing is killing, I do not agree that accidental deaths such as when an insect hits the windshield of a moving car constitutes as the action of killing if, on the part of the person driving the automoble, there is absolutely no intention to kill the insect.
I also do not think that religious arguments regarding the consequences of killing — arguments such as you will be condemned to Hell for all eternity after death, you will have an unfortunate rebirth after death, et cetera — are useful arguments for people outside of those particular religions. I think that when it comes to getting the general public as a whole to understand the harm of killing other sentient beings, especially human beings, we need to try a different approach.
Jason
Of course, ultimately it doesn't matter what excuse is used, what culture you're in, or what the reason is. Killing is still killing. You can't get around that. If you kill someone, you accumulate the karma of killing. Even if you drive down the road and bugs smash up against your car you're accumulating the karma of killing. That's what keeps us spinning on the wheel. You can't live without killing. However, if you kill a human - the one realm where you have a chance to achieve enlightenment - the karma is much, much heavier. Motivation may count, or maybe not. Can you possibly know? No, so why even contemplate it?
Forgive me for disagreeing with you once again, and being the proverbial thorn in your side in general, but I have to at least mention a couple of my personal beliefs that might contradict what you are saying. While I agree that killing is killing, I do not agree that accidental deaths such as when an insect hits the windshield of a moving car constitutes as the action of killing if, on the part of the person driving the automoble, there is absolutely no intention to kill the insect.
The bottom line is that killing a human is stealing their opportunity to achieve enlightenment, and since a precious human rebirth is extraordinarily hard to come by and extremely rare, it might be a long, long, long time before that individual gets the chance again. So it might seem like a nice, easy solution to kill somebody, but is it really? Can you live with the consequences? And what's the worst that can happen if you don't defend yourself? That you will die? So what? If you're prepared for death, it doesn't matter. You've lived countless lives before and will live countless more.
I also do not think that religious arguments regarding the consequences of killing — arguments such as you will be condemned to Hell for all eternity after death, you will have an unfortunate rebirth after death, et cetera — are useful arguments for people outside of those particular religions. I think that when it comes to getting the general public as a whole to understand the harm of killing other sentient beings, especially human beings, we need to try a different approach.
Jason
0
Comments
Palzang
To be frank, I do not believe that there is any kamma, especially the kamma of killing, as long as there is s no intention to harm or kill the insects. In Pali, the word kamma itself means action. Therefore, the kamma of killing would be the action of killing. Furthermore, in AN 6.63, the Buddha says, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect." In the specific instance of a person driving an automobile, as long as there is no intention to harm or kill any insects, there is no kamma or action of killing.
While this understanding of the doctrine of kamma might differ from that of other traditions, the Theravada Vinaya confirms this interpretation, stating that, "Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pacittiya offense." (Pc 61/420). In The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople, the Venerable Thanissaro summarizes this monastic rule, and explains that, "Intention is an essential factor here. For example, if a bhikkhu only intends to sweep a path but accidentally kills ants in the process, there is no offence because it is not deliberate."
Jason
Palzang
If you know you are killing (even insects) & continue your actions, there is going to be some volition to kill. I am just not so sure how heavy such karma is in the example you are using. Perhaps if you went around in your vehicle trying to kill, but if your livelihood depends on driving, and you (sincerely) wish for the benefit of those beings, it probably isn't too bad. Also, I believe there are bug shield things that change the airflow on the front of your vehicle so you don't get as many being killed. (hmm... suddenly I feel compelled to get one).
metta
_/\_
Why should I burn the teachings of the Buddha? Because I can use them to prove my points? Because they help me to understand what the Buddha taught? Because you disagree with them?
Yes, and you also said that, "If you want to consider someone a Living Buddha, that's fine, but there is no quasi-official rank of Living Buddha." Why should I take their word over the suttas?
I am saying that if the person's intention is to drive said car from point A to point B, and there is no intention to harm or kill insects on the way, then it does not constitute the kamma of killing.
No, that would be what you are saying that I am saying. I am saying that the Buddha gave a clear definition of kamma, a defintion that made it explicitly clear intention was the prime factor.
Jason
Not trying to be contentious, but I would like to point this out for a possible elaboration of clarification on your part. Previously you said this:
and this:
Just wondering how you resolve this statements with your previous 'Living Buddha' statement.
metta
_/\_
Sillyness ..
Reminds me of a Christian fundamentalist debate.
I'll tell you what .. every 500 years we should all burn the suttas .. then all find our way again.
Good Day ...
I didn't say that the heaviness of the karma was the same for killing an insect was the same as killing a human. Don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it is impossible to live without killing, but that doesn't mean you get off scott-free either. What I said was that sort of thing is what keeps us on the wheel of cyclic existence.
not1not2
I don't see any discrepancy in the two statements. There is indeed no Buddha (ultimate reality) and the Buddha does manifest for the benefit of sentient beings as our teachers (relative reality).
Palzang
My point was this. How do you know that your teacher is a living Buddha to take his word over what is written in the Suttas? Maybe you need to take the words of this living Buddha & burn them yourself. Not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems that you are just kind of writing off Jason's opinion as 'clinging' to teachings based on your own clinging to teaching.
Beyond that, I'm not so sure Elohim is missing the 'spirit' of law. The intention/volition behind our actions IS the spirit of the law. It seems you are taking more of a Jain position in regard to unintentional killing. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it does seem that your statement that we accumulate negative kamma/vipaka from such actions goes against a very widely accepted teaching. Perhaps you would care to clarify or elaborate.
metta
_/\_
It is important to remember, I think, that the main point of the Buddha's path is to change oneself, and to change oneself fundamentally. If you're not changing yourself on your path, then something's wrong. That's why experience in practice is at least as important as studying the teachings. You can't have movement without both.
Palzang
And this is where we disagree. I believe that the spirit of the law to be the same as the letter, which is focused on intention.
I am confused as to how I put words in your mouth. I said nothing whatsoever about the heaviness of the kamma for killing.
And what I believe that I was very clear in articulating was that I do not believe unintentional actions constitute as kamma.
Jason
Of course, although NOT ALL THE PEOPLE OF SEDONA are always right, Palzang somehow manages to be.
Elohim, It's just Ridiculous to say that the Letter and the Spirit are the same.
Intent, though extremely important, does NOT trump the law. End results —not intentions or inclinations— are what the law examines most scrupulously.
The law holds us responsible for our acts, not for our intentions. If I, a motorist, run over the neighbour kid whilst backing out of my driveway, it is my act of hurting, not my lack of intention to hurt, that is at issue.
In point of fact had I been more earnest in my attention (intention) to NON HURTING, I would have been more careful and would have proceeded to back up with all due caution and circumspection of the environment. Then I would have seen the neighbour kid and would not have hit him.
Palzang's just Right here. One must have the Intention Not to Hurt. "Above all, do no harm." To stop another human being in his or her tracks and to do him harm is just plainly wrong, even though it may not always constitute a crime.
The Law. The law. The Law. What could be more pregnant with karma than the Law? The law is what orders our lives, our finances, our devotions, our loves. The best way to avoid suffering from the force of law is to seek peace. The Dhammapada is clear:
Whoever tries to seek happiness through hurting others cannot find happiness.
Whoever tries to seek happiness without hurting others can find happiness.
If, like a cracked gong, you silence yourself, you have already attained Nibbana: no vindictiveness will be found in you.
A man who practises virtue, who has confidence in what he does, who meditates and who understands the Law, such a man will get rid of suffering as a thoroughbred horse gets rid of being whipped.
Actually, if we are talking about the very strictest letter of the Law as laid down by Parliament and the House of Lords... Intention comes under question, most rigorously. At least, here in the UK it does.
A prosecutor is not charged with only examining the act, but the intention behind the act, whether the act was completed or not.
Sometimes, even with the best of Intention, one is subject to the fullest weight of the Law.
So Intention is extremely important.
I don't see your point. I agree that intentions are very important, and I said so above. But what are you saying, if not the same thing I just said, except that:
I'm just not as dang smart as Palzang and remain confused.
Love you anyway.
Jesse
We are talking about the law of kamma. Intention is the law. In AN 6.63, the Buddha clearly defines kamma as intentional actions. The Buddha does not define all bodily, verbal, or mental actions as kamma, only intentional bodily, verbal, and mental actions. Therefore, the letter of the law, sort of speaking, is clear in this regard—intention constitutes kamma.
In that case, the question that stills remains is, how is the spirit of the law to be understood in the case of the unintentional deaths of insects by driving a car? In your opinion, would the spirit of the law go against the Buddha's definition of kamma, and agree with Palzang that the unintentional deaths of insects while driving still constitutes the kamma of killing?
Of course the intention not to harm is extremely important. That, in fact, is the intention behind the first precept. Nevertheless, even if one has the intention not to harm any insects while driving, insects will still collide with the windshield. My position is that it does not constitute as the kamma of killing according to the defintion of kamma given by the Buddha.
Regards,
Jason
So, I'm not really sure how this spirit is at odds with the law, & i really don't see any support for the argument that unintentional actions come with a negative vipaka outside of blind speculation. Now, that is not to say the insects aren't killed or that upon unintentionally hurting someone does not come with some resultant grief. However, that may simply be caused by one's valueing of life. While this may happen subsequent an act of unintentional harm, that does not necessarily mean it is a direct causal correlation, but rather by supporting conditions which give rise to such emotions.
Anyway, perhaps now would be the time for us to gracefully bow out of this debate. On the other hand, perhaps there is some real value in continuing it. Let us just make sure we don't cause too much divisiveness on this board.
with metta
_/\_
Thanks for your response.
Intention is all relative to something or other. If I back my brute automobile over the neighbour kid, I am obviously more intent on MY OWN AGENDA for the day than I am on attending conscientiously to going about my life in a manner designed not to cause harm.
Therefore, all our actions are intentional and cannot help but be. Even in sleep, when we move our arms (unless it be by mere random muscle spasm) something in us propels us to want to move that arm. Perhaps it is the arm itself displaying itself.
When I mow the lawn, some small stones may move that i wish would not, yet it is I that choose to mow, not the stone to be moved.
The more I project myself on the world to agrandize myself or my weal, the more I cause harm to others. Yet, it is nonetheless MY INTENT to seek my ends. My Purpose drives me. Therefore, whether I intend to do this or that, I do it BECAUSE I AM DRIVEN TO ACT by my will to live. To live is to seek one's own ends at the expense of those of others. But this does not mean that one has to do this in an unreflective or hasty way.
Karma is basically "work," what is done, what we do. That the Lord Buddha might have once defined kamma as intentional actions comes as no surprise to me. After all, we are forward-looking animals intent on procuring good things for ourselves. That is a position, an attitude, an intention.
I agree with Palzang: The human incarnation we are privileged to be stewards of STANDS ON A HIGHER LEVEL than that of the insects (although we should limit our encroachment on them to the best of our ability).
As for the Spirit or Letter of the Law matter, well suufice it to say that YOU are spirit.
And That's Beautiful.
Fond Regards,
Nirvana
metta
_/\_
I agree with you that this discussion might be heading towards the less positive side of the spectrum, and I am hesitate to continue. The main reason that I am, however, is that I believe people should at least have a certain level of understanding in regard to what the Buddha was recorded as saying (i.e. the law) before they argue what they interpret those words to mean (i.e. the spirit).
When it come to the kamma of killing, for example, I often here people argue that every action that results in a death of some sort, no matter what the intention behind the action may be, constitutes as the kamma of killing. While that is certainly a valid viewpoint, I do not think that it is a viewpoint that is supported by the Buddha's words, at least not the words recorded in the Pali Canon.
Perhaps people think I am here just to argue. More than anything, though, I am here to try to offer what information that I possess in order for people to have access to that information. While I offer concrete references for people to utilize, I also offer my own personal interpretations of those references. It is up to each individual to do with those references and interpretations as they see fit.
Jason
In the Pali Canon, there is a distinction made between intention or volition (cetana) and appropriate/inappropriate attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara). In the Theravada commentary entitled Abhidhammattha Sangaha, for example, it explains how appropriate attention at a certain stage of our thought process will determine whether an action is skillful or how inappropriate attention will determine whether an action is unskillful.
That does not mean, however, that all actions, whatever they may be, are considered to be kamma according to the Buddha. He was very specific here to seperate his doctrine of kamma from those of other teachers and sects, especially from the Jain founder Nigantha Nattaputta. Perhaps there is some sort of kamma involved in driving a car and unintentionally killing insects in the process, but is it the kamma or action of killing?
I agree that the majority of our actions are dictated by our wants and needs, and that those actions are indeed volitional. I do not agree, however, that you can equate the unintentional deaths of insects from hitting the windshield of a car with the kamma of killing when the intention to harm or kill is not present. While a valid standpoint, I cannot find sufficient evidence for this being what the Buddha taught in regard to kamma.
Jason
Four selected references on kamma:
Maybe some will find these helpful.
Sincerely,
Jason
I hope that everyone here understands that just because I have a strong conviction in my interpretation of certain Buddhist terms and doctrines does mean mean that I am not open to being corrected where I am wrong in my understanding of these things. Seriously.
The fact of the matter is, there are certain areas where I have a large amount of textual sources, as well as secondary sources, that support my interpretations, and I simply need to be confronted with a sufficient amount of contradictory evidence from reputable and verifiable sources for me to accept that my interpretations are incorrect.
Please understand that I am not trying to argue against people's personal views or beliefs, but I am trying to argue against those views and beliefs being presented as what the Buddha taught when they contradict his teachings. I apologize if this makes people unhappy.
Sincerely,
Jason
First off, I bow to your superior knowledge of the sutras. I mean this sincerely and with thanks to you for your kindness and attention.
There is, of course, a Higher Law that Realized Beings are aware of. In that sense Buddha's words on this are of paramount importance.
However, there still remains, I think, an ethical imperative to restrict one's perigrinations and such, so as to cause the least amount of harm to others of all kinds and species. Palzang's points certainly seem close to how I see things. "No one is good" is the Hebraic way of saying that life devours other things and in so doing accrues something of a sinful nature.
This sin (bad kamma) adheres to us in two ways. First, samskaras, or darksome thoughts, tendencies, memories, and the like. And second, the Blame or Guilt, however that may be accrued or measured and by whom. Even if it does not touch us as individuals, it reaches us collectively.
Collective Karma. Who can doubt it? Perhaps a thousand motorists careening near wheatfields killing thousands of insects per hour over several years is enough to cause a strange inability 20 years on for the wheat fields to germinate or pollinate. Major famines could ensue.
I guess what I am trying to say is that IT IS INTENTIONAL when we disregard other things and go about doing what we do as though they were not realities in themselves.
I posted the first response to the Hold Up Victim Kills Would Be Robber thread, saying that it sounded like an EXECUTION to me, and I was rather confused that allegedly Buddhist-leaning individuals would have such "Make My Day" attitudes towards other people. Palzang comes round talking like a Buddhist, acting like a Buddhist, and being a Buddha and people jump on him for having strange positions. I don't get it (But then, I'm not as smart as Palzang.)
I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and I thank you for the compliment.
Yes, I think that this is true—especicially for those with faith in the Buddha.
Yes, this is called ahimsa (non-violence), and it is a part of Right Intention.
In Buddhism, when there is no intention, there is no unskillful action or sin.
It is certainly possible that unskillful actions can result in unskillful thoughts.
No, guilt is not necessarily unskillful. Guilt can also act as a safeguard *.
I, for one, can doubt it. You can see one of my arguments for why here.
And that is only one intention, and whatever intention it is, it is not killing.
I do not think that disagreeing with someone equates "jumping on them".
Jason
I am sorry to hear that. For what it is worth, I think that if there was no intention to run over the rabbit, there is no unwholesome kamma; if there was the intention to avoid swerving and hitting the rabbit in order to avoid a more serious traffic accident, there may be some degree of unwholesome kamma. If the action was motivated by compassion for the other drivers, however, and not simply to hit the rabbit, I think that the resultant unwholesome kamma would be lessened due to the thoughts of compassion.
Best wishes,
Jason
I maintain that it's really more organic than all that. Logically, we think in terms and use words, but reality is more multi-dimensional than our thought processes (which tend to be self-serving or species-serving). The physical sphere in which we move is not comprised of terms, but of dimensions and substance. There has to be some kind of compensation paid for everything that's taken. See Emerson on this: http://www.rwe.org/works/Essays-1st_...mpensation.htm
No, the idea of karma does not primarily address time (You spoke about collective karma being about THE PAST.); Karma’s sphere is the folded-in-upon-itself sphere of spatial and personal and tribal and national interrelationships, with their complicated structures, nuances and interdependencies.
The idea of kamma can only be valid for one person alone if it is also at the same time valid for all together. Otherwise it would seem just a personal matter. And how could that be, if there were really to be any consequences (In other words, karma)?
I really must say that I cannot follow your reasoning here, my friend. In what way does the idea of collective karma take on the "weight of the world"? And who is there with sufficient credentials to declare definitively either all the restrictions or all possible ramifications of any of these teachings on kamma? It seems patently clear to me that if I, an American, were to venture into a land of American misdeeds, such as Iraq, that some sort of Blame or Bad Mental Formations about my person would crop up among the Iraqis who saw me. Just my personal karma, that? How can anyone believing in fish not believe in the ocean? How can anyone believing in karma dismiss the idea of collective karma?
________________
* But I thought the quest to end suffering was impossible. I thought it was the quest to end the suffering caused by suffering.
I said:
You said:
And I say that although it may not be my first, second, or third INTENT, the fact that I avert my eyes and carry on makes me QUITE CONTENT (HAPPY) with the outcome. I show no grief or remorse. Therefore it is my intent that the insects die so that I may make my many drives between Omaha and Sioux Falls. My intent is for my happiness and I have DECIDED that the insects DO NOT MATTER. Therein lies intentional action. (I'm an intensive driver, say.)
Also, on a different note: I think that disagreeing with someone equates with "jumping on them" if the method addresses him or her with personal matters. Perhaps I felt pounced upon myself more than just a bit when I was asked some somewhat personal questions about my family.
And, bushinoki, I too feel for both you and the dear rabbit. Once when I was driving to work two dogs, half a mile away from each other, in two separate instances a minute apart, ran almost right in front of me. I've never run over a domestic animal, and the two occurences so close together really fazed me. I would have tarried for hours, late to work, in remorse had I hit one of the two.
None of that proves that the Buddha taught the concept of collective kamma.
The context of that thread was about past actions, specifically those of WW2.
Kamma is valid as long as there is intention, and kamma is a personal matter.
My reasoning is based on the preceding posts in the thread, and off-topic here.
That is a misunderstanding of what kamma is according to how it is presented.
I can because I have not seen evidence that the Buddha taught such a concept.
The Buddha said, "I declare only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" (MN 22).
Jason
Maybe you intend for them to die, but I never intend that or believe that they do not matter.
I never addressed Palzang in a personal matter, I simply disagreed with his view of kamma.
Jason
Well, my friend, WHOSE suffering? It should be seen as the suffering of all, or do I just completely miss what Buddha was all about?
If I have not compassion and good wishes for the prosperity of all, I simply lack GOOD Intentions.
I really think, though, that though we might be arguing a few points out here, that I agree with you about 98%. It's just those pesky words getting in the way. I'm kinda dense, you know.
I hope you don't mind my taking sides with Palzang on this, though, and saying so. I really said all I said hoping that people wouldn't take me any more seriously than I take myself. You kinda got like where Palzang stands, knowing not to believe everything he thinks. Afterall, reality is one thing and our thoughts about it quite another.
My mistake. I simply assumed that you were in some way referring to me. I apologize for jumping to conclusions and assuming that everything must revolve around me.
The problem is, suffering, as well as kamma, comes down to individual experience. In the end, each person is responsible for their suffering and their freedom from suffering.
I agree with you for the most part, but I also believe that if one starts out with good intentions for themselves, with wisdom, it will naturally evolve into compassion for others.
I think that perhaps the difference in our views is how to understand and use the path in order to put an end to suffering. We simply see the practicalities from different angles.
I do not mind what side a person takes in a discussion. I am simply offering my own interpretations and references, and people are free to either agree or disagree with them.
Jason
Let me address one more thing, while slightly off the main topic, that has been brought up in this discussion. The subject of collective kamma bothers me for a number of reasons. It is not that I believe that it is impossible for there to be a concentration of individual kammic results in one place, due to the combined actions of a cohesive whole, such as from the citizens of a country; nevertheless, I believe that they are still individual results from individual actions.
Furthermore, the idea bothers me when people use it unskillfully. By this I mean that they harbor intense guilt for actions that they did not commit themselves, and then create more suffering for themselves by cultivating unwholsome mental states believing that they are somehow responsible. This itself, if we believe the teachings on rebirth, can lead to an unfortunate rebirth because the mind, through these feelings of guilt, can condition a desire to be punished.
Essentially, it is believed that the mind plays a primary role in rebirth, and unwholsome mental states help to condition where the next consciousness will arise after the cessation of the last consciousness at death. If people feel they are responsible for genocide, rape, and slavery because their country or ancestors once participated in such actions — assuming that the mind plays a primary role — can you imagine how that would affect their destination after death?
I think that if people used the idea of collective kamma in a more skillful way, such as in giving humanitarian aide, I would not have such a problem with it. But, given the tendency of people to harbor guilt in numerous unwholesome ways, I feel that such ideas can do more harm than good. That is why I said that using the idea of collective kamma to take on the "weight of the world" is counter-productive to these teaching's intended use in the quest to end suffering.
Jason
It makes me wonder if this is the way Tamil women and children`s bodies torn apart under bombs of Dhamma-defending Sri Lankan artillery and airplanes is to be declared free of the kamma of killing. Ants swept off the the path unintentionally? Colateral damage. They can say: we only intend to extinguish terrorism. Of course Buddhist lay people push the buttons, aim the can(n)ons, pull the triggers, not monks. But monks of Sri Lanka have formed a political party to oppose any negotiation or compromise with the Tamils. The fact that this will almost certainly lead to further suffering and further Tamil terrorism which will then lead to further Sri Lankan government military attacks along with attendant colateral damage is , I suppose, perfectly unintended by those monks, even if they know full well that innocent people will continue to be killed. In their view (in my view it is a deluded view) they are just trying to defend the Dhamma....
But why is it that so often when people try to defend the truth it is precisely then that they betray it? Maybe I am betraying it now, but I don`t intend it. I know we are supposed to be politely ecumenical here. Don`t get me wrong. I respect the Sangha, and in particular that portion of it that is Theravadin. But many of us here are Mahayanists! We simply do not accept the notion that everything that the Buddha taught is contained in the Pali Cannon. For example, The Shurangamma Sutra, which is accepted by the vast majority of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists as Buddhadharma, teaches the existence of collective karma. It is what accounts for the fact that you and I percieve the same deluded "reality".
Anyway, in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha seemed to me to be implying that there is collective kamma. He was asked under what conditions a certain nation/tribe would be able to be defeated in war and gave certain conditions.
Does this make sense?
metta
_/\_
You raise some interesting points, however, I am not sure that your examples are analagous. For example, a broom is not designed to harm or kill; a broom is designed to sweep away dirt. A bomb, on the other hand, is specifically designed to destroy both life and property. I do not think that dropping bombs on people and killing them is the same as killing some insects while sweeping away dirt. Even if the people dropping the bombs themselves are not intentionally trying to kill a specific person, the intent to kill or at least do damage is still present. Regardless of that fact, the exact workings of kamma are complex and beyond our range of knowledge. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that the actions of monastics who enter the political arena under such circumstances will have some unwholesome individual kammic consequences.
Personally, I think that the presence of ignorance is what prevents people from seeing reality as it truly is. The reality that we experience it is nothing more than dependently arisen phenomena, and with the destruction of craving comes the destruction of the lust, hatred, and delusion that obscures our vision. I also think that there is a distinction between a person's intentional actions and the supporting conditions for a particular outcome. However, just for the record, I never said that I accept the notion that everything the Buddha taught is contained in the Pali Cannon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that I accept every teaching that is attributed to the Buddha, especially when those teachings contradict what is in the Pali Canon. As I said before, I have simply not seen enough evidence in favor for the idea of collective kamma.
Jason
Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. That is a definition of collective kamma that seems to be supported by the suttas, and if that is how collective kamma is understood by the majority of people, then I would fully support such an idea. I simply disagree with the idea that because I am considered an American citizen, I have accumulated the kamma of killing because another American citizen has killed a person or persons in another country, regardless if the killing was done in the name of "America". I simply do not believe that the Buddha taught guilt-by-proxy in relation to kamma.
Jason
metta
_/\_
But my question about the Maha-parinibbana Sutta remains unanswered.
In that teaching the Buddha tells us that the defeat of a nation may come about because they fail to uphold the veneration of traditional shrines, among other things. It would appear that the misfortune of defeat falls upon the whole nation even though not each individual intended the neglect of the worship due to the local gods.
I don`t think it is only said as a coded way to tell the Sangha to hold onto the traditional teachings, even though that is reasonably the context of it. As it is presented, the Buddha actually told someone who was going to fight a real war. The inference may be that if a nation is to be defeated because of its lack of faithfulness to its traditional devotion then how much more will the Sangha be in danger if they abandon the correct teachings and practice. This is of course important when considering the fate of Buddhism in India itself, a subject I often wonder about. Surely not every monk in India was corrupt, but they all together lost the Sangha. I think it is also something that has to be honestly faced when we contemplate what has happened in Tibet.
Of course I like this passage not only because it is a Pali source implying something that I would call collective karma, but also because it upholds the meritoriousness of "idol worship", something else I am in favour of!
Actually, when monotheists accuse us of being "idol worshippers" we ought not to know what they are talking about, even if we do have to get beyond superstitious attachements.
Actually, I attempted to answer by stating that, "I also think that there is a distinction between a person's intentional actions and the supporting conditions for a particular outcome." To elaborate upon my point, while they can appear to be similar (i.e. in a causal sense), they are not analagous. The Buddha detailed a number of causal-relationships, but only one of them did he define specifically as intentional actions of body, speech, and mind. In the Patthna, the last book of the Abhidhamma, kamma is only one of twenty four distinct modes of conditionality. Kamma, for example, is not identical to root conditions (hetu paccaya), supporting conditions (nissaya), et cetera. On this point, I understand that it relies heavily on a Theravadin bias, especially with the introduction of textual support from the Abhidhamma. Therefore, I understand this explanation might not be satisfactory.
Nevertheless, it might be prudent to re-read the passage in question. At the very beginning of the sutta, we are confronted by Ajatasattu, king of Magadha. King Ajatasattu, desiring to wage war against the Vajjis says, "These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them." The king then sends his cheif minister, a brahman by the name of Vassakara, to visit the Buddha, repeat to him what the king has said, and report back the Buddha's reply. Here begins the Buddha's conversation with his cousin, Ananda, about the Vajjis and the seven conditions for a nation's welfare (which is also found at AN 1.79). Now, the Buddha, who only speaks truth, tells Vassakara that the Vajjis growth is to be expected, presumably due to these seven conditions—conditions which are shown to promote growth in a worldly life.
Soon after Vassakara leaves, the Buddha addresses the assembly of monks, and details seven conditions for the wefare of the Sangha. Preceeding this discourse, the Buddha travels to Pataligama, and the Buddha's followers greet him and ask for his advice. The Buddha consents, and everyone gathers at the town meeting hall. Here the Buddha gives a talk on morality, mentioning both sila and rebirth, which are generally considered to be aspects of kamma—specifically kamma that is dark with dark result (i.e. immoral behavior) and kamma that is bright with bright result (i.e. moral behavior) (AN 4.235). What I find interesting about this is that while all these particular situations are similar in a causal sense, the Buddha used certain terms to differentiate between the actions of a large number of people (i.e. the Vajjis or the Sangha) and the virtous actions of a single person.
In the former, the Buddha used words such as "conditions" when referring to the Vajjis or Sangha, while in the latter, the Buddha used words such a "virtue" and concepts such as "rebirth" when referring to a single immoral or moral man. Therefore, while I agree that there are similarities in appearance between the former and the latter, I cannot ignore the distinctions that are made as well. I think that if anything, not1not2 is correct in his definition of collective kamma; and I believe that if the Buddha was indeed implying a form of collective kamma at the beginning of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, then it was in the sense of grouping a bunch of individuals, and therefore individual intentional actions, together in a particular, albeit arbitrary, fashion. I do not believe that the Buddha was implying a "nation", which is merely a conceptual distinction, has its own kamma per se.
Jason
Before I go any further, my contribution here is not an examination of the suttas but of the practice of a life devoted to peace.
The conversations betwen Nhat Hanh and Berrigan took place in the 1970s under the shadow of the Vietnam war, just as this discussion is overshadowed by wars in the Middle East and Africa.
At one point TNH says, speaking of one of the conflicts:
It is my impression that each individual is confronted by a challenge and a choice when the group or nation to which they belong engages is challenging actions such as war. We are required to make a personal choice and there is no escape into excuses about "my country right or wrong" or "everybody else is doing it".
The example that has always inspired me is that of Pastor Bonhoeffer. He tried to find peaceful ways of accommodation with a violent and murderous regime, believing in the democratic process. Over time, he realised that he could no longer compromise the absolute values of peace and justice. We may not approve of his choice to join a plot against his head of state but it was a choice and one which he made consciously and deliberately.
Sartre says, in L'Etre et le Neant, that when we choose to join in with a group, by going to war for example, we choose to accept the consequences of the actions of that group. In that way, we take those consequences on ourselves and, often, on our children as well.
Whether or not there is such a thing as collective kamma, it cannot absolve the individual from their own responsibility in the face of the challenge of the Dharma.
That is an excellent point, and that is precisely the point that I have been trying to make as well. Regardless of what group a person is thrown into, the teachings on kamma point to individual actions and personal responsibility. In no way am I making excuses for people's actions. I am simply convinced that when it comes to the law of kamma, the Buddha was specifically referring to the individual intentional actions of the conventional, run-of-the-mill worldling. As far as my understanding goes, each present moment, we as individuals are making choices and performing actions based on those choices, for which we are then kammicly held responsible.
I believe that this interpretation of kamma is well supported by the suttas themselves, especially AN 6.63 and SN 35.145. In AN 6.63, the Buddha states that, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect." Furthermore, in SN 35.145, the Buddha states that, "The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated and willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated and willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma... Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma."
Jason
First of all, you have a human body and a human mind, all you know is this body......like a frog in the pond, your value, judgment, belief are certainly not in tune of what Truth is. No matter what you believe, it will be wrong..not until one see the Dharmakaya, one would NOT know what is real from what is at fault.
For now, I think killing will going on (unintended or not) and that is the mode of the human mind. They see things coming and going, the dying and the born.......the Buddha does not.
Paladin
I think Jason is right with his view of karma, although there might be other views of karma, his view is well supported by the Sutta Pitaka.
Metta
Two great teachers agree.