Mixing
How does one know which kamma-cetana and action is related to which kamma-vipaka being experienced?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For instance if I go to a Buddhist center and a dog bites me on my leg while there.
How do I know whether:
example 1:
a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life
or
b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being at a Buddhist center
?
example 2:
I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.
How do I know whether:
c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.
or
d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?
karma
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For instance if I go to a Buddhist center and a dog bites me on my leg while there.
How do I know whether:
example 1:
a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life
or
b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being at a Buddhist center
?
example 2:
I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.
How do I know whether:
c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.
or
d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?
karma
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For instance if I go to a Buddhist center and a dog bites me on my leg while there.
How do I know whether:
example 1:
a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life
or
b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being at a Buddhist center
?
example 2:
I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.
How do I know whether:
c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.
or
d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?
karma
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
For instance if I go to a Buddhist center and a dog bites me on my leg while there.
How do I know whether:
example 1:
a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life
or
b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being at a Buddhist center
?
example 2:
I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.
How do I know whether:
c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.
or
d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?
karma
karma
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 52 mins ago
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
asked 5 hours ago
Angus
155
155
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Angus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"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 & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.
If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"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 & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.
If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"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 & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.
If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"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 & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.
If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"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 & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.
If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
answered 4 hours ago
ChrisW♦
28k42384
28k42384
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler. The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.
– Angus
27 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
The idea of some things being caused by "nature" (beyond bile) I find peculiar. Are there any suttas where the Buddha says that people can be killed by or experience great pain because of "nature"? If that is the case then how would people be able to be assured enlightenment within 7 lives etc. as "nature" might kill them before they are even born each time.
– Angus
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Angus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Angus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Angus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Angus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29651%2fhow-does-one-know-which-kamma-cetana-and-action-is-related-to-which-kamma-vipaka%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password