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.
Did the Buddha say "Stuff Happens" unrelated to karma?
"Sivaka approached Gotama and asked him to comment on the wisely held view that whatever a person experiences as pleasure or pain is the result of his or her former actions (karma). The BUddha said that people who hold such a view "go beyond what is known by themselves and what is reckoned to be true by the world' and are therefore 'in the wrong'. He pointed out how the experience of pleasure or pain may simply be the result of ill health, inclement weather, carelessness or assault. The BUddha thus categorically rejected on of the central dogmas of orthodox Buddhism and, in it place, presented an entirely empirical view of the sources of human experience."
Stephen Batchelor (again!) referring to:S.IV 299-21
No the Buddha did not say that stuff happens without Karma as its condition. At least not in this instance.
The sutta says that past action is not the cause of present karma results. Which is accordance with the general karma teaching since volition is the cause not action.
If past ACTION would be the cause of all current karma then there could be no end to the Samsara and a holy life is not possible. Since even a Arahant has to act.
Like most people, I have witnessed many fortunate results from seemingly negative actions and the other way around. I am left with a sense of wonder and mystery around my experience of karma, more so than a belief in it.
Not to beat these issues to death, but this question was raised a couple of months ago. What about people who wreak havoc during their life, and seem to prosper? The businessman who makes a fortune by taking advantage of people, the bully who harms people routinely, but doesn't seem to suffer from negative consequences to his actions?
CW, that is not what I meant really. An example of the type of event I was talking about is this. A guy who fished for me once many years ago went on to be killed at sea when the boat he was on capsized in a storm. The decision made to stay out was the wrong one. He left behind a pregnant girlfriend. Very tragic. Although this fellow was an excellent person he was also an alcoholic and not very responsible. Several years later the woman met and married a hard working man who took her daughter as his own and raised her to be a wonderful successful person. She is 25 now. Had her biological father not been killed she may not have had the same advantages that she had. Of course all this can be seen as random happenstance which it is but it fills me with wonder all the same.
No problem, V-heart; that's why I posted this thread--to get opinions. All of the above has been enlightening. Good work, everyone!
"huge lessons to learn about patience and responsibility". --Vajraheart
Yeah, I get that! Good illustration! Once we accept that everything is the result of karma in some form, then we can analyze, take responsibility, and correct our view, thoughts and actions, advancing ourselves on the path in the process. hmmm.... Lots of food for thought.
Let us know how your back is, V-heart. Hopefully they'll give you a scan to determine that everything's ok, structurally...?? You might need a brace for awhile, but at least it's not surgery.
The sutta says that past action is not the cause of present karma results. Which is accordance with the general karma teaching since volition is the cause not action.
If past ACTION would be the cause of all current karma then there could be no end to the Samsara and a holy life is not possible. Since even a Arahant has to act.
Read the original sutta and se what I mean.
I'm not understanding this. Volition, not action, is karma? Doesn't karma mean action? Past action is NOT the cause of present karma results? How can mere volition (without action--don't they go together? or do you mean "intent" by "volition"?) result in karma? (help! :-/ ) I can see how /intent/ would be a factor in karma.
I'm not understanding this. Volition, not action, is karma? Doesn't karma mean action? Past action is NOT the cause of present karma results? How can mere volition (without action--don't they go together? or do you mean "intent" by "volition"?) result in karma? (help! :-/ ) I can see how /intent/ would be a factor in karma.
Yes think about it this way. Nibbana means the end of producing kamma. But if every action we take produces kamma then how can an Arahant or a Buddha act at all without producing kamma (thus becoming entangeled in this world again).
The intent while acting,thinking or talking is important for the production of kamma.If somebody does not have bad intent when acting then there is no bad kamma.
Have you read the original sutta? What do you say about it? I have read this missinterpretation of this sutta (IMO) at other places. But personally I do not feel this is a contradiction in any way to the Buddhist Kamma teaching.
There are many good referenses in the margins of the text. I mostly use ATI for those.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes think about it this way. Nibbana means the end of producing kamma. But if every action we take produces kamma then how can an Arahant or a Buddha act at all without producing kamma (thus becoming entangeled in this world again).
Kamma is the action. Vipaka is the product, the consequence, the result. Kamma is volitional action. producing IS Kamma...you can't 'produce' Kamma. Kamma IS the production process. It's like saying 'Yellow Jaundice'. Jaundice means yellow. so you're saying 'Yellow yellow'....
The intent while acting,thinking or talking is important for the production of kamma.If somebody does not have bad intent when acting then there is no bad kamma.
'The intent while acting, thinking or talking determines the Kamma.' full stop.
So, kamma is the action (as Cloud said earlier, too), but the intent that spurs the action determines the type of kamma (the later fruit of it)? Volition is not kamma, action is? (Just trying to clarify.) Is one of those conflicting suttras questions?
Kamma is the action. Vipaka is the product, the consequence, the result. Kamma is volitional action. producing IS Kamma...you can't 'produce' Kamma. Kamma IS the production process. 'The intent while acting, thinking or talking determines the Kamma.' full stop.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Kamma is Volitional action, that is to say, something thought, said or done with a specific intention. The Intention drives the type ('good' or 'bad') of kamma, the type of kamma has a corresponding type ('good' or 'bad')of vipaka.
Comments
The sutta says that past action is not the cause of present karma results. Which is accordance with the general karma teaching since volition is the cause not action.
If past ACTION would be the cause of all current karma then there could be no end to the Samsara and a holy life is not possible. Since even a Arahant has to act.
Read the original sutta and se what I mean.
All of the above has been enlightening. Good work, everyone!
"huge lessons to learn about patience and responsibility". --Vajraheart
Yeah, I get that! Good illustration! Once we accept that everything is the result of karma in some form, then we can analyze, take responsibility, and correct our view, thoughts and actions, advancing ourselves on the path in the process. hmmm.... Lots of food for thought.
Let us know how your back is, V-heart. Hopefully they'll give you a scan to determine that everything's ok, structurally...?? You might need a brace for awhile, but at least it's not surgery.
The intent while acting,thinking or talking is important for the production of kamma.If somebody does not have bad intent when acting then there is no bad kamma.
Have you read the original sutta? What do you say about it? I have read this missinterpretation of this sutta (IMO) at other places. But personally I do not feel this is a contradiction in any way to the Buddhist Kamma teaching.
/Victorious
search for the word volition in this document if you are interested.
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf
There are many good referenses in the margins of the text. I mostly use ATI for those.
Kamma is volitional action. producing IS Kamma...you can't 'produce' Kamma. Kamma IS the production process. It's like saying 'Yellow Jaundice'. Jaundice means yellow. so you're saying 'Yellow yellow'.... 'The intent while acting, thinking or talking determines the Kamma.' full stop.
The Intention drives the type ('good' or 'bad') of kamma, the type of kamma has a corresponding type ('good' or 'bad')of vipaka.
action without volition still does not produce good or bad kamma. Exactly. Not the action alone.
So I am not actually saying Yellow yellow...:).