Our old friend the Imponderables
Cinorjer
Veteran
In a recent thread the subject of karma came up, followed immediately by someone reminding us it's one of the "Imponderables". Since this usually derails any discussion because it's followed by a complaint that no topic should be harmful or off limits in Buddhism, I hoped we could have at it in our own thread here. I am one of those who thinks people mistranslate what the sutra is saying. It's often taken to mean thinking about and discussing some topics like karma is dangerous and should be avoided. Since we in the Western world have a history of free thinking and enquiry, this doesn't sit very well.
I suppose I should actually quote the offending passage so we are all on the same page. This is copied from “Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable”, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
“There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
“The Buddha-range of the Buddhas (that is, the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha) is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
“The jhana-range of a person in jhana (that is, the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana) . . .
“The [precise working out of the] results of kamma . . .
“Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
“These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.” (AN 4.77)
Now for my own take on the dire warning contained in the sutra. The word translated as imponderable or unconjecturable is "Acinteyya." It does not mean what people think it does. It does not mean incapable of being understood, but more like cannot be completely and precisely understood using normal logic. Quantum physics is an example of a subject that is acinteyya. Something is both a particle and wave? The act of just observing something causes an effect? A cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box to see? There is no way to understand quantum physics using normal logic. But the physicists who ponder it every day are not in danger of going mad.
Nobody today really cares about what sort of supernatural powers the Buddha or someone advanced in meditation states might have, and the monk who wrote this sutra had no way of knowing our telescopes and science have answered what used to be imponderable questions about the origin of the world, we still are obsessed with karma.
Oh, about that repeated "bring madness and vexation" warning. Not everything is to be taken literally even in the sutras. If I told you people who go on and on about reincarnation and past life karma "drive me crazy" you would know I'm not actually going out of my mind. But someone from a different language and culture would not know it's a figure of speech and think I'm being serious.
So should we ponder the mysteries of karma, or not? Should we take this warning seriously, or not?
Comments
The two words don't mean the same thing so I find it odd that they get inter-changed like that.
Pondering is thinking something over.
Conjecture is forming a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
I can see how jumping to conclusions can obscure the truth and lead to confusion especially if faith comes into play but that is not pondering.
@Cinorjer
I would suggest that the problem is not so much that some subject is unsolvable
but
is thinking that if one can just think about them in the right way, it can be.
This is just a teaching that becoming attached to thought is just as much a cause for suffering as becoming attached to any other sense gate.
The Buddhas teachings were about how to resolve life's suffering, not about attempting to be omnipresent.
But would you say the Dharma is insisting that pondering and conjecture is itself either a waste of time or interferes with a proper practice? Or just these subjects listed?
@Cinorjer
Interesting question.
Suffering's cause gets addressed if the pondering and conjecture about anything leads to the softening and dissolving of ones clinging to identity, ego or the selfish self.
Suffering's cause gets intensified if the pondering and conjecture about anything leads to the hardening and increasing of ones clinging to identity, ego or the selfish self.
I don't think that pondering and conjecture are in themselves a good or poor use of ones time,
rather that
it is in our our relationship to or usage of them that determines what they are.
otherwise....would there be any point to contemplation itself?
OP, the warning about madness ensuing if you put your mind to certain questions, or study a text you haven't received the initiations and permission for (as in the case of some tantric texts) is a very old convention from back in the day. I actually think it was intended to be taken literally. But that was then, and this is now.
Buddhism can adapt to contemporary reality, there's no reason why not.
I think the ancients had a point, that it's only vexing, not terribly helpful, to ponder the workings of karma. I think, as we have done so many times on this forum, it's sufficient to note that karmic seeds sown in the past can ripen at any moment, during any lifetime, alone or in combination, so that we shouldn't expect any kind of a logical or linear type of process. "Have I doomed myself for the next lifetime, because I did X earlier in this life?", worries one practitioner. There's no way to know, and there's no point in worrying, because the karmic boomerang might not come your way for several lifetimes. Or you may have sewn enough positive karmic seeds in the past that all of it would balance out. Don't fret, just live, and live mindfully and compassionately.
Another point: is pondering the origin of the Universe a waste of time? I think in the early Buddhist times, that was said in part because it might incline people toward metaphysics and/or religious doctrine ("Is there a God?"), which is irrelevant to practice and therefore potentially distracting from the path and methodology the Buddha laid out. Some scholars might say that's exactly what lead to elements of Hinduism being incorporated in to Buddhism. Right there, suddenly, you've sewn the seeds of controversy, which is counter-productive. But I think in our time, and being products of Western rationalism, we're capable of holding potentially conflicting ideas in our minds simultaneously, without fear that our practice will be disturbed, or that Buddhism will be hijacked by our speculations.
Is pondering the extent of the Buddha's siddhis pointless or too vexing? Possibly, as it can lead to division and conflict between interpretations, and bring discord among practitioners. In that sense, the warning is practical. Maybe we can all agree to disagree on the finer points, and accept that "the Lord (Buddha) works/worked in mysterious ways", and leave it at that.
I think discussing these matters is useful, in that I've learned a lot here from the discussions, and that has helped my understanding of Buddhism, and subsequently, my practice.
Just as an aside, nothing to worry about (for the moment) and nothing anyone should be overly concerned about, right now....
threads inconclusively discussing unconjecturables, really hack me off.
Ok, carry on.....
@federica Last thing I'd want to do is hack you off. I hope to discuss the sutra itself and if we understand what it's trying to say. You have to admit that this one paragraph stands in stark contrast to a Dharma that encourages us to rational, practical thought. It tickles me that we have dozens of sutras that explore and explain the Buddhist take on karma, and then this one passage that says pondering karma leads to madness. There is something we're not getting about this message. That, or a whole bunch of Buddhist monks have gone mad over the centuries that we never heard about.
I think it does fall within the Buddhist teaching of the "irrelevant questions" that is illustrated by the man with the arrow asking who made it. Do you think it means we shouldn't struggle with what Buddhism means by karma? Or maybe the writer has a different definition of madness than we're thinking of?
No, actually, it doesn't. It tells us that the Dhamma is a work primed for discussion and learning, application and living, but just as a warning, don't be side-tracked from studying the Dhamma by these 4 nut-noodle-knotters. Focus on the Dhamma. You'll just distract yourself unnecessarily if you focus on these, instead of the suttas and teachings.
That's because the Buddhist take on the Kamma is carefully explained within the context of it's actionable effect on the person concerned. But the intricate workings of Kamma (ie, collective, past, precise workings) aren't.
I think the message is pretty clear. You can't know the precise workings of Kamma. therefore, don't even try to guess. It's pretty intricate, you'll just tie yourself up in knots trying to second-guess a rationale to it. Don't bother. Stick to the Dhamma....
No, I think the message is clear. Whatever you do with intention, creates Kamma. Which is why we have the 8fold path teaching us what and how to behave with Intention.
Is this too simple for you? Are you looking for complications because in actual fact, it is so very simple?
Why TRY to examine something you have logically and correctly been told will fry your nut?
You think you can out-Buddha the Buddha?
No, I think your questioning it, pretty much clarifies it in an exemplary fashion....!
What is a thought? (is that worth asking or is it an imponderable?)
I dunno.... what do YOU think....?
@federica I think this is simply one area I have to disagree with you and the sutra. First of all, karma is certainly not clear or consistent in the explanations given in the sutra, and it is our nature to explore the limits of what we can and can't comprehend. Zen Buddhism practice can be defined as pondering the imponderable until your mind gives up and discovers a different way of seeing the world, so I can't agree there's anything wrong with hitting your head against the mysteries of life.
When the sutra was written, pondering the origin of the world was included in the imponderable list. People who had no idea they weren't supposed to do it went ahead and discovered the origin of the world, and life, and the universe itself in a way that nobody then could even imagine. How do we know we can't do the same with karma if we don't try?
But I always hesitate to argue the sutras can be wrong, because it's always possible I just don't get what the author is trying to say and I'm not an authority or scholar.
There is pop-karma, where people try to connect action with instant payback. A nice tidy weights and measures universe.
Children suffer because they were bad people in a previous life.
It coddles our sense of fairness and cosmic justice.
We care not to face a complexity of cause and effect and interdependence working beyond our capacity or more importantly need to know.
We have more pressing madness to address. Priorities if you will.
I agree very much with @federicas post. Focus on generating good karma, not trying to guess how it all works out ...
But the problem of saying, "Never mind what karma is." is that you block yourself from saying "This is certainly not karma." Take the "Sex slaves were bad people in a previous life" definition of karma. And yes, that is used as an excuse in Buddhist countries to explain the practice. Are they wrong? It feels gut-wrenchingly wrong to me, but we're not supposed to ponder the intricate workings of karma one way or another. See what I'm trying to say? We can't just ignore it and get on with our practice.
You can disagree all you like. It doean't make you right or it, wrong.
First of all, karma is certainly not clear or consistent in the explanations given in the sutra, and it is our nature to explore the limits of what we can and can't comprehend.
It might be in our nature, but that doesn't guarantee any resulting satisfactory answers, does it?
1 - I don't subscribe to Zen practice.
2 - there's plenty wrong with hitting your head against the mysteries of life, if the analogy is one of bashing your head against a wall. Lovely when you stop, because it's a worthless and futile exercise....
Science is different to metaphysics. You're comparing apples and oranges.
In that case, if you don't get it, why examine it? If you don't fully get it, your answer will by definition be flawed....
That's the whole point. Other peoples' kamma is not for you to be concerned about.
Because you can't change their minds, lives, events or processes.
The only kamma you can directly affect and be concerned by - is your own.
Nobody is saying "Never mind what Kamma is."
But it's utterly hopeless to consider its significance with relation to others.
Actually, that's precisely what we should do.
>
One thing religion is for is to explain why the world is the way it is. In a way, religions are grown-up Just So stories. Saying that a child was born deformed due to past karma helps people make sense of life's seeming unfairness. The problem is when practitioners, as has been observed all over Asia, take that as an excuse to compound the unfairness and cruelty by writing the child off. Talk about blaming the victim!
There's a lot of misinterpretation of Buddhist doctrine going on, even in Asian Buddhist communities: oversimplification, distortions, and so forth. That's why I find these discussions so helpful. They go beyond that, and allow for more in-depth analysis and clarification.
Yes. I'm sure it does. But that's just guesswork, isn't it? It's a total hypothesis...
It doesn't happen as much elsewhere, so I think that's also a cultural thing, a general ignorance and superstition, rather than Buddhist thinking....
I'm not sure how examining what we consider to be the the Wrong Views of other Buddhist cultures is in any way helpful because it doesn't actually resolve anything or change the mind-set of those thinking that way.
Analysis is great if there is a conclusion. With regard to the above, there is none.
So it basically comes down to idly chatting about something we have no influence over.
Oh, hang on. I think I misinterpreted what you mean...
Discussing topics without the fatalistic and destiny elements is I would say, more productive, but It brings with it its own problems....
In-depth analysis of the specific topic in hand (the unconjecturables) is not so much clarification, as just going over the same old ground, with about the same success as the last time.
But @federica why even have a Buddhist forum then? There's nothing here in any topic that we haven't gone over time and again, and no topic that we can say we've successfully answered that question to everyone's satisfaction?
I hope you don't think I'm trying to argue with you, but I'm fascinated. What topics do you consider to be suitable for the forum, then?
Those that don't have 'unconjecturable' as a caveat.....
It seems to me that as usual, things (especially solid definitions of words) are often lost in translation. I guess I would take the seemingly contradictory information (here's a bunch of sutras about karma, read about them! But don't think about them because you'll go crazy!) as more of an attempt to offer information, but not an invitation to debate it endlessly.
I was reading Thomas Browne's Religio Medici last night and highlighted these, just because the quotes caught my mind as we'd discussed such things recently. Seems like a good place to put it:
"I love to lose my self in a mystery, to pursue my Reason to an O altitudo!"
"There are a bundle of curiosities, not only in Philosophy, but in Divinity, proposed and discussed by men of most supposed abilities, which indeed are not worth of our vacant hours, much less our serious Studies."
I ask myself what value I get from pondering such things. Often, it is just ego spinning it's wheels, hoping for some major epiphany to share with others. Other times, it is a way to figure out difficult things in life. As a child, raised a Lutheran, when I was unhappy with results I used to bargain with God. "If you'll just let my kitty live, I'll be good forever!" as I'm sure many people do. Now, I find myself going to things like Karma and Rebirth to try to bargain. Not to plead with them in the same sense, but rather to consider them when I am having a difficult time making a decision or understanding something that is happening. I don't know if it's all ego or not. Sometimes it feels that way when I go through those things. I think we like to convince ourselves of some purpose to the madness that is Samsara. It's why we say things like "it's meant to be" or why we look for the positive meaning that perhaps is a silver lining we have not yet seen in the most horrible of circumstances.
A little boy whose story I followed died of brain cancer a few months ago. He was 2. His mother is a devout Christian. She prayed for a year for a miracle. It would appear the miracle came, and then it was gone again. Through it all, God had a purpose in it, and a purpose for the boy. After he passed, her reasoning was that they did indeed get their miracle, and that that was that he died after all and is with jesus now and now suffering. For us, we would talk about karma and rebirth. But we would use those things to comfort ourselves because if we don't, it makes life pretty hard to bare.
So, long story short, I think we ponder a lot of these things not necessarily to try to get an answer, but to have somewhat of a grip on whatever our beliefs entail so when poop hits the fan, we have something to grab for.
That's just it.
I don't ponder.
If I can't get an answer, I leave it.
Either an answer will come - or it won't.
If it comes, my life might be the richer for it. Who knows? It might not be...
If it doesn't, my life might be the richer for it. Who knows? It might not be...
I'll 'wait and see'.
In the meantime, there are dishes to wash, laundry to do, floors to sweep.
Mindfully.
Not at all. These misconceptions are held by some Westerners, too. That's why discussions such as this are valuable; they help clarify and inform. This is a forum aimed specifically at newbie practitioners, like the one a few months ago who was terrified he'd have a miserable life in his next rebirth, due to errors in the present one. The forum exists to guide people to the correct interpretation of the teachings and principles, does it not?
I agree.
Providing insight and opinion on someone's worries regarding rebirth, is one thing. Guidance is what they seek. We may not have the answers to rebirth, but we can offer reassurance.
This topic is discussing unconjecturables.
You think discussing an unconjecturable topic is spending valuable time productively?
@federica Why don't we just close this one down, okay? I just don't feel comfortable because I don't want to upset anyone and I certainly don't want to wonder if I'm crossing a line. There's plenty of other topics to talk about.
I think it depends on what direction the discussion goes in. I think discussing why they're classified as imponderables, and the possible reasons some teachings say not to ponder them, can be helpful. Pointing out that some sutras say not to ponder the workings of karma while others do teach about the consequences of wholesome and unwholesome action can be interesting and constructive. There are a number of directions in which a discussion on this topic could go.
I don't see any reason for you to feel uncomfortable. I'm certainly not upset, and I don't think anyone else is....
If you're crossing a line, I'll let you know. So far, you are way far off from that, by any stretch of the imagination.
And this has moved on from 'should we ponder the mysteries of Karma...?' to 'what's the point of pondering the imponderables...?' So in a way, it's ponderable....
I rest my case!!
I think discussing what the teachings means is a good discussion. I appreciate it being brought up because I hadn't realized the conundrum existed. I am tempted to ask my teacher his thoughts on the matter out of curiosity.
You never know where a discussion goes. Some of the most frustrating discussions here have been the ones that brought about actual change in my life. Some of my ponderings while in the shower, or driving, are things that have also lead to changes in my life. Different understandings lead to change. It's a good thing.
I have a couple thoughts.
One, the imponderable on karma is about the precise workings out of karma not the general principles. So you can know that good actions bring good results but you can't figure out how giving that homeless person a dollar combined with other karmic seeds leads to some specific result, ie. having someone cover your grocery bill shortage, down the road.
Two, I figure something like figuring out the origin of the universe via metaphysical philosophizing won't lead to any fruitful conclusions whereas investigating it with sophisticated instruments and computer algorithms can give good answers. So maybe if Buddha gave the same teaching today the list would be somewhat different?
I hope it stays open until I wake up, lol.
Pondering the unconjecturable is still not the same thing as forming conjecture over that which begs pondering.
I have a spiel about karma here but no time to get it going.
@David don't get stuck on the details of the definitions of the words. As long as we are on the same page as we discuss it is fine. Remember these are words that are many hundreds of years old and do not translate well into modern language much. Nevermind then trying to translate into English.
thought is a 'thing or a living being' that comes into mind
which is experienced before through the six sense bases
thinking is the activity of the mind on the base of a thought or in other words action of the mind on a thought
(according to my understanding so far)
This may only apply to some Buddhist schools but I have wondered if
one of the reasons to have karma listed as unfathomable arose from Buddhists so often mistakenly trying to explain all of existence through Karma's structure when at least 4 other universal laws also have their own places in the mix.
(1) the laws of the physical world - that the world is not answerable to one's will;
(2) the laws of the organic world - that all things flow;
(3) the laws of morality - that karma is inexorable;
(4) the law of the Dharma - that evil is vanquished and good prevails;
(5) the laws of mind - that of the will to enlightenment.
Exactly so @how
Life? It's complicated. Simplify.
Zen roolz. Yeahhhhh! [I iz so New Agey]
If we look at the imponderable list as both a product of its times and a response to a problem the monks were concerned about at the time, then the extra sharp prohibition against getting caught up in minute details of such topics as what Buddhas are actually capable of might make more sense. We know from archaeology and ancient records that Buddhism quickly split into various sanghas, each with their own Master and differences in belief in what Buddha actually taught. What do you think of the idea that this is written in an attempt to get the various monks at the time to stop arguing over their different beliefs and focus on what's important?
I think that was part of the motive, for sure. And archaeological studies have shown that the split between Mahayana and "Hinayana" began during the Buddha's lifetime, not afterwards. Just thought I'd mention that.
But it's very easy to get tangled up in trying to decipher the workings of karma. It's best to realize that it can't be understood or mapped or predicted, which in itself is a valuable teaching, and to forge ahead being the best Buddhist one can be.
I sure would like to know how the physicists deal with their "teaching" that mere observation causes an outcome, though.
Something about a collapsing wave function and I have no idea what that really means. I am still boggled over dark matter and dark energy.
Yeah, I get the wave vs. particle thing, I just don't know how observing it could cause it to flip one way or the other. Or how not observing the live or dead cat could mean that it's neither until you observe it.
Didn't the Higgs Bosun discovery have something to do with dark energy or dark matter?
Cool toy the Swiss got--that supercollider. Of course, only the Swiss could afford such a toy.
But I digress....
One can always talk and speculate on the nature of karma, nothing wrong with that. That is not an imponderable. The precise workings of karma ... maybe that is. Point is, some people brush everything aside as imponderable, so no discussion is possible. That's a shame, really.
these are the five laws that Buddha explains
1. irtu niyama
2.beeja niyama
3. kamma niyama
4. dhamma niyama
5. citta niyama
kamma niyama is the only thing that we can make impact now
in paticca samuppada (dependent origination) 'avidya paccaya sankara' is the previous kamma
'sankara paccaya vinnana, paccaya namarupa, paccaya salayathana, paccya passo, paccaya vedana' are the present kamma vipaka (five aggregates occur here)
if we do not know (if we still are worldlings) about above, we will go for another round of samsara by creating 'vedana paccaya thanha, paccaya upadana, paccaya bavo'
this 'thanha, upadana, bavo' is the kamma creation at the present moment
as far as my understanding
Is it possible that the teaching of kamma is to make the "unacceptable" more bearable in the similar way to having a God handing out rewards and punishment? "The universe will set things right in the end" sort of thing.
Yet there is no disputing that the teaching of kamma is a central tenet in Buddhism.
But that is all to be let go off for the right ending of stress.
"Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is_ sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions_."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta
It pays for one to ponder what lies over yonder - beyond this reality of which the eyes can only see
Thanks @upekka and @pegembara perfectly sound advice from the horses mouth Buddhas teaching.
And now back to those who know better [allegedly] ...
http://opcoa.st/0XpdW
But it doesn't seem like we are all on the same page. The two words have completely different meanings but they are being used as synonyms.
All the more reason to ponder them out. How can we take something at face value when it's wearing a mask?
What makes more sense - a warning not to contemplate the great mysteries at all or a warning not to form a conclusive belief around them?
Seriously.
I think getting a good translation of the actual words used in the sutra is important. Subtle differences can make a big change in the message. Look how different the Noble Truth is, if you think Dukkha just means pain. Just because a sentence from the old Sanskrit or Pali scrolls gets translated one way back when only a few scholars struggled with it, doesn't mean it is entirely correct.
According to the Sanskrit-English translations available on the web, Acintya (Sanscrit) means "incomprehensible, surpassing thought." I didn't know that.
Now to me, incomprehensible is different from imponderable. First, imponderable is a strange word that isn't normally used. Does it mean this subject can't be pondered, or is forbidden to be pondered, or what? And since to ponder is to think about something, obviously people think about karma a lot.
But incomprehensible is a word we're familiar with. The subject is too vast or complicated or removed from our experience to totally wrap our minds around.
As far as where the limit is, I think that depends on the person entirely. I am a science buff and it pains me that most people don't know and don't care that we have probes wandering our solar system taking close up pictures of the planets and asteroids that inhabit it. We have telescopes that can find evidence of planets around other stars and discovered planets are as common as grains of sand. Yet my comprehension of how the universe works is nothing compared to someone like Stephen Hawking, and even he would say we know almost nothing about how the universe actually works. It's incomprehensible.
@David I've not had a problem following what anyone means in the thread, even if the words are being used interchangably.
@Dakini There is dark matter research being done in an old underground mine 25 mile from my home. They do tours of their physics lab and it's super fascinating. We don't have the collider, but we are doing some pretty cool research, too.
http://www.sudan.umn.edu/
This article is several years old now, but this process and discovery has been repeated many times since.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091218-dark-matter-detected-mine-minnesota.html
I believe words are important. In defense of the word conjecture, it seems to me it should be pointed out a conjecture = a theory. It seems to me developing and testing theories is a beneficial thing. Wheres, when I think of the word ponder, to me (and to merriam-webster) it can mean "prolonged/inconclusive thinking." Perhaps, the limited knowledge-base of the time correlates to the language used in this sutta, and given this limitation, the idea of pursuing a given line of inquiry would simply prove fruitless?
Conjecture is not a theory though. Conjecture is defined as a conclusion based on incomplete information or evidence.
Could be. Then again, finding out the truth isn't always the goal to contemplation. Sometimes it's just an exercise in logic.
The thread is just an example. If we all knew what was meant exactly then we would all be using one or the other, not pretending they mean the same thing.
By "we" I don't mean just us here but students of Buddhism in general.