Some silly karmic question.

Joshua

If Jill makes Jack angry and Jack refrains from verbalizing or even showing any explicit sign would that not only improve Jack's karma, but also Jill's?

My question originates from this source:

When we speak about a karmic action, four factors need to be complete for the results to be the fullest. If any of these factors is missing, the result will not be so strong. But that doesn’t mean that there will be no results.

First of all is a basis. There needs to be a basis, a being or an object at which the act is aimed. We thought that someone was in the bathroom too long and we started yelling at them, but then it turned out that there was nobody there. This is not as strong as if there actually were someone there. There has to be someone who hears our yelling, understands it, and believes that we mean it. If the person is deaf or had the radio playing and couldn’t hear us, it is not so strong.

Wouldn't this also extend to Jack's sense of emptiness and his sense of Jill's confusion of or nonexistent knowledge of the dharma which would have purified Jack's karma such that he does not get angry (or at least less angry than in the past) at Jill's instigation?

Then another division, which is really quite an interesting one, is “enacted karma” and “built-up karma.”

Enacted karma (byas-pa’i las) refers to any physical or verbal karmic impulse that has actually led to our committing a physical or verbal act, whether or not it has been urged (bsam-pa), in the sense of having been built up to or brought on, by our own urging thoughts or deliberation beforehand. Built-up karma (bsags-pa’i las) refers to any karmic impulse that has been urged, in the sense of having been built up to or brought on, by our own urging thoughts or deliberation beforehand, whether or not it actually has led to committing a physical or verbal act. If the built-up karma does not lead to a physical or verbal act, the built-up karma is a mental karma – a mental urge to do or say something, based on a thought process beforehand.

In general, there are four types of karmic actions, either destructive or constructive, that bring about results that will start to ripen in this lifetime. Their ripening may, however, continue into future lives as well.

The first pair is destructive actions that are brought on because of extreme attachment to our body, possessions, or life, and the constructive actions that come from extreme disregard for any of these three. For example, I am so attached to my car and you banged into it, so I go over to your car with a baseball bat and smash it. Or it could be that I am so attached to not getting sick that I refuse to help someone with a contagious disease. On the other hand, I could be so detached from my body that I rush into a burning building to rescue a child trapped inside.

The second pair is destructive actions brought on by extreme thoughts of malice toward anyone, such as torturing an enemy prisoner, or a constructive action brought on by extreme thoughts of altruism and love, such as nursing a wounded enemy soldier.

So if Jack refrains from getting angry then he's cut off a karmic potential and then also kept instigating Jill's anger from reaching it's capacity, thereby in the immediate present preventing that karma from ripening to what it could have (like a long argument) and also diminishing the arrival of the future urge/obtaining cause as well as purifying Jill's karmic potential that otherwise would have been perpetuated by a less skillful Jack?

bodhipunk

If Jill makes Jack angry and Jack refrains from verbalizing or even showing any explicit sign would that not only improve Jack's karma, but also Jill's?

Jack is still angry, even though he doesn't verbalize or show it. Anger still arose within his mind.

Wouldn't this also extend to Jack's sense of emptiness and his sense of Jill's confusion of or nonexistent knowledge of the dharma which would have purified Jack's karma such that he does not get angry (or at least less angry than in the past) at Jill's instigation?

Even if he is less angry, he is still angry.

Then another division, which is really quite an interesting one, is “enacted karma” and “built-up karma.”
...
So if Jack refrains from getting angry then he's cut off a karmic potential and then also kept instigating Jill's anger from reaching it's capacity, thereby in the immediate present preventing that karma from ripening to what it could have (like a long argument) and also diminishing the arrival of the future urge/obtaining cause as well as purifying Jill's karmic potential that otherwise would have been perpetuated by a less skillful Jack?

If he does not instigate Jill's anger, that is great. Of course, Jack's skillfulness is beneficial for both parties. However, if he was still initially angry (even if he doesn't vocalize it or show physical signs of it), there will be some kind of appropriate result (vipaka), although it may be lesser if he diminishes the arrival of "obtaining cause".

Joshua

Nice word there, vipaka, I'll go ahead a use that for now on.

..

So if Jack has no anger and fully comprehends Jill's situation then it truly benefits both's karma?

bodhipunk

Nice word there, vipaka, I'll go ahead a use that for now on.

You would be surprised how many times people are referring to "vipaka" when they say "karma".

So if Jack has no anger and fully comprehends Jill's situation then it truly benefits both's karma?

Does it benefit them more if there is no anger (even if anger arises, and is let go of regardless of its vipaka or effect) and he comprehends their situation, or would they benefit if he got extremely pissed and started breaking shit? I'm sure its pretty obvious that skillful action would benefit both parties.

Joshua

lol.

That's only extremely funny to me because I am prone to breaking shit.

Erm, even though Puddha breaks shit sometimes he's still omniamorous.

thickpaper

If you have a bath that is warm and you add hot water, it will get hotter. If you add cold water, it will get colder. This is physical causation. Isn't Karma the same, except with mental/moral/spiritual causation?

If you increase the wholesomeness of the world, your world will become more wholesome. If you increase the unwholesomeness of the world, your world will become more unwholesome.


And by "world", because of interdependent causation, I guess it could mean anything from the inner world of our experiences, to the outer world of our interactions and the distances world of our futures and the futures of others.

Joshua

So if Puddha breaks shit he's going to be a sad bear? Too much hot water, huh?

Vincenzi

i guess, it will improve both... but mostly the one that understood ahimsa (note: 'can defend).