« Prev Page 4 of 4 2 3 4 Please log in to reply 93 replies to this topic

[rockyysdt]

Jawnie, on 2012-02-07 19:28:06, said:

Mirth, on 2012-02-07 17:44:05, said:

Pardon my ignorance but it had always occurred to me that making offerings is a ritual or respect to the God one prays to and merit/s is based on our genuine good behaviour towards others.

Merit is the result of both the actions you mention: offerings to "the Gods" and our genuine good behavior to others.  Both generate merit.

Which Gods Jawnie?

[Jawnie]

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-08 14:27:54, said:

Jawnie, on 2012-02-07 19:28:06, said:

Mirth, on 2012-02-07 17:44:05, said:

Pardon my ignorance but it had always occurred to me that making offerings is a ritual or respect to the God one prays to and merit/s is based on our genuine good behaviour towards others.

Merit is the result of both the actions you mention: offerings to "the Gods" and our genuine good behavior to others.  Both generate merit.

Which Gods Jawnie?

I don't know which gods, whichever gods one prays to, I guess.

[rockyysdt]

Jawnie, on 2012-02-09 09:59:25, said:

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-08 14:27:54, said:

Jawnie, on 2012-02-07 19:28:06, said:

Mirth, on 2012-02-07 17:44:05, said:

Pardon my ignorance but it had always occurred to me that making offerings is a ritual or respect to the God one prays to and merit/s is based on our genuine good behaviour towards others.

Merit is the result of both the actions you mention: offerings to "the Gods" and our genuine good behavior to others.  Both generate merit.

Which Gods Jawnie?

I don't know which gods, whichever gods one prays to, I guess.

Why would you raise "Gods" as they either don't exist, or if they do, they are just higher beings lost in samsara like the rest of us?

Why would preying to Gods bring merit?

[Jawnie]

Rockyysdt: I'm answering with a new reply because the system isn't letting me reply via quotes - getting an error message and I can't post.  Anyway.....



Mirth's question mentioned gods, I was simply including it in order to give answer the question. I agree with you and I don't pray to gods.

In any case, the gods don't make the merit. The merit is generated by and through the good (supposedly) intentions of the one making the offering.

[sabaijai]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-06 18:50:30, said:

Thanks Sabaijai

Well, PA Payutto ought to know, so I stand corrected.

But I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced that once we have formed an intention to act in a way that results in kamma <-> vipaka that vipaka only kicks in after a while.  What's been going on in the meantime?  Is the period between the kamma-action and the vipaka-effect ("the shadow") a kind of neutral territory, a morally free zone in which the vipaka-effect is assessing what form it will take?

In an infinite and non-dual universe the action and its moral effect are synchronic, aren't they?  The physical effects of an action on either the doer or the object of the action may take effect later, but kamma/vipaka (same thing really in my view) occurs at the moment an intention is formed (and is reduced, but not erased if the intention is withdrawn).

Of course, if I were sitting at the feet of Ajarn PA Payutto or any other similar authority I would raise my questions, and having raised them would then defer to his scholarship and experience.  This is how I responded to the scholarly teachers I had in my Catholic theological studies, but it didn't mean that in my heart I accepted their teaching.

I'm not yet convinced.

What would be the evidence for your theory that vipaka is instantaneous? Or counter-evidence against it not being instantaneous, ie rising to fruition over time?

[Xangsamhua]

sabaijai, on 2012-02-09 16:28:33, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-06 18:50:30, said:

Thanks Sabaijai

Well, PA Payutto ought to know, so I stand corrected.

But I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced that once we have formed an intention to act in a way that results in kamma <-> vipaka that vipaka only kicks in after a while.  What's been going on in the meantime?  Is the period between the kamma-action and the vipaka-effect ("the shadow") a kind of neutral territory, a morally free zone in which the vipaka-effect is assessing what form it will take?

In an infinite and non-dual universe the action and its moral effect are synchronic, aren't they?  The physical effects of an action on either the doer or the object of the action may take effect later, but kamma/vipaka (same thing really in my view) occurs at the moment an intention is formed (and is reduced, but not erased if the intention is withdrawn).

Of course, if I were sitting at the feet of Ajarn PA Payutto or any other similar authority I would raise my questions, and having raised them would then defer to his scholarship and experience.  This is how I responded to the scholarly teachers I had in my Catholic theological studies, but it didn't mean that in my heart I accepted their teaching.

I'm not yet convinced.

What would be the evidence for your theory that vipaka is instantaneous? Or counter-evidence against it not being instantaneous, ie rising to fruition over time?

Thanks for the question, Sabaijai.  I may have confused people, or just myself.  I'm thinking only of the kamma that produces moral effects (vipaka, if I've got it right).

If I form an intention to steal from my boss I think the moral effect (kamma or vipaka) occurs at the moment I form that intention.  The longer term effects (vipaka) of course take fruit over time - guilt, fear, secrecy, lying, moral degradation, possible discovery, humiliation, punishment, impact on family, etc., but the moral effect is instant.

If I form the intention to steal, but later reflect on it, the moral effect is lessened (and the potential other effects disappear), but any karma accrued as a result of the initial immoral intention does not disappear, as I understand it, even though, over time the benefits of good karma may be accrued and counterbalance the bad.  The good karma over time will lessen the effect of the bad.  That may be a simplistic understanding, but that's how the doctrine of karma seems to be presented.

To take up Brucenkhamen's point about conditionality in post #72: ("Conditionality is working all the time in that everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions"), I'm just not well enough versed in the philosophy, so I don't know how conditionality either helps or hinders the argument I've been making.  It would seem to suggest that there is no nexus at all between future effects and present actions, as so much interdependent causation has taken place in the interim that outcomes are indeterminate.  However, it could be an argument also for determinism.  If I form an intention to steal from the boss I do so because all the causative conditions are in place to ensure that I will form that intention, in which I may have no moral culpability at all.  The Principle of Sufficient Reason applies; I'm just a product of the causes and conditions.  (It may be off the topic, but I recently saw an argument by a Japanese Rinzai scholar to the effect that conditionality is a strong argument against the idea of Buddha Nature.)

[rockyysdt]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-09 19:05:29, said:

sabaijai, on 2012-02-09 16:28:33, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-06 18:50:30, said:

Thanks Sabaijai

Well, PA Payutto ought to know, so I stand corrected.

But I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced that once we have formed an intention to act in a way that results in kamma <-> vipaka that vipaka only kicks in after a while.  What's been going on in the meantime?  Is the period between the kamma-action and the vipaka-effect ("the shadow") a kind of neutral territory, a morally free zone in which the vipaka-effect is assessing what form it will take?

In an infinite and non-dual universe the action and its moral effect are synchronic, aren't they?  The physical effects of an action on either the doer or the object of the action may take effect later, but kamma/vipaka (same thing really in my view) occurs at the moment an intention is formed (and is reduced, but not erased if the intention is withdrawn).

Of course, if I were sitting at the feet of Ajarn PA Payutto or any other similar authority I would raise my questions, and having raised them would then defer to his scholarship and experience.  This is how I responded to the scholarly teachers I had in my Catholic theological studies, but it didn't mean that in my heart I accepted their teaching.

I'm not yet convinced.

What would be the evidence for your theory that vipaka is instantaneous? Or counter-evidence against it not being instantaneous, ie rising to fruition over time?

Thanks for the question, Sabaijai.  I may have confused people, or just myself.  I'm thinking only of the kamma that produces moral effects (vipaka, if I've got it right).

If I form an intention to steal from my boss I think the moral effect (kamma or vipaka) occurs at the moment I form that intention.  The longer term effects (vipaka) of course take fruit over time - guilt, fear, secrecy, lying, moral degradation, possible discovery, humiliation, punishment, impact on family, etc., but the moral effect is instant.

If I form the intention to steal, but later reflect on it, the moral effect is lessened (and the potential other effects disappear), but any karma accrued as a result of the initial immoral intention does not disappear, as I understand it, even though, over time the benefits of good karma may be accrued and counterbalance the bad.  The good karma over time will lessen the effect of the bad.  That may be a simplistic understanding, but that's how the doctrine of karma seems to be presented.

To take up Brucenkhamen's point about conditionality in post #72: ("Conditionality is working all the time in that everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions"), I'm just not well enough versed in the philosophy, so I don't know how conditionality either helps or hinders the argument I've been making.  It would seem to suggest that there is no nexus at all between future effects and present actions, as so much interdependent causation has taken place in the interim that outcomes are indeterminate.  However, it could be an argument also for determinism.  If I form an intention to steal from the boss I do so because all the causative conditions are in place to ensure that I will form that intention, in which I may have no moral culpability at all.  The Principle of Sufficient Reason applies; I'm just a product of the causes and conditions.  (It may be off the topic, but I recently saw an argument by a Japanese Rinzai scholar to the effect that conditionality is a strong argument against the idea of Buddha Nature.)

Hi X.

Many Buddhist misuse the word kharma , using it to describe ones destiny:  Oh, it's my Kharma.

This can lead people to become fatalistic.

lsn't kharma an action and Vipaka the fruits of the action?

I wasn't aware that thought itself is negative kharma.

Many if not all are capable and do have dark thoughts as well as positive and neutral thoughts.

Isn't the trick, to observe them as they arise and pass, and that the concern is ending up with a chain of thoughts due to poor mindfulness and by acting on such thoughts?

Edited by rockyysdt, 2012-02-10 12:06:37.

[Xangsamhua]

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-10 12:03:52, said:

Hi X.

Many Buddhist misuse the word kharma , using it to describe ones destiny:  Oh, it's my Kharma.

This can lead people to become fatalistic.

lsn't kharma an action and Vipaka the fruits of the action?

I wasn't aware that thought itself is negative kharma.

Many if not all are capable and do have dark thoughts as well as positive and neutral thoughts.

Isn't the trick, to observe them as they arise and pass, and that the concern is ending up with a chain of thoughts due to poor mindfulness and by acting on such thoughts?

Hello Rocky
I'm confused about karma and vipaka.  I know karma is meant to be action, but one talks about karmic effects, which I now learn are vipaka and are different and able to be separated in time from the original action.  Why did I not know about vipaka?  I've read a lot about Buddhist thought, practice and history in the past three years, since I finished my Catholic theology studies, and had some knowledge prior to then.  I'm not a beginner, but here comes vipaka out of the blue. I've obviously been studying the wrong materials.  Perhaps I should spend more time in Access to Insight, but the material I have read there has left me a bit cold.  Sorry.

If karma as action produces a karmic effect (from the action, i.e. vipaka), then there must be something in the action that does so.  Is it like firing a high-powered rifle on a rifle range?  When I pull the trigger the next thing I know is that the target has been hit.  The target is a long way from me and I have no awareness of the bullet passing through the air.  It's just "bang!", then "thwack" way off in the distance, but the effect is entirely a product of my pulling the trigger.  So with karma, both cause and effect are inherent in the action, initially potentially and then, if the action is completed, in actuality.

So with thought, or intention.  Mere thought would have no karmic effect.  If I think "mmm, I wouldn't mind getting into bed with her", but then let the thought go, as one does most of the time, then I can't see any karma being accrued, unless one takes declarations such as the sermon on the mount (commiting adultery with the eyes) literally.  However, if I form an intention to get the young lady into bed with me then karma is present - an intention is a mental action - the intention both constitutes and accrues karma.  It has a karmic effect.  

But my grasp of the philosophy is shaky.  If in fact an intention is not an action of a mental kind; if the action/karma takes place only in some physical or mediating form to do good or harm, e.g. helping an old lady across the road (good), telling lies about someone to others (malicious gossip - bad), then I would need to concede the point.  But one thing I believe is constant in Buddhadharma is that the "thought" or the intention is where karma has its roots.  Action follows thought, or at least proceeds from a mindset that gives rise to that action.  As it says in the Dhammapada, and we all know it:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage... If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. (Max Muller)

Or you may prefer Thanissaro Bhikkhu's version: Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart, made of the heart. If you speak or act with a corrupted heart, then suffering follows you — as the wheel of the cart, the track of the ox that pulls it.

[rockyysdt]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-10 13:23:03, said:

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-10 12:03:52, said:

Hi X.

Many Buddhist misuse the word kharma , using it to describe ones destiny:  Oh, it's my Kharma.

This can lead people to become fatalistic.

lsn't kharma an action and Vipaka the fruits of the action?

I wasn't aware that thought itself is negative kharma.

Many if not all are capable and do have dark thoughts as well as positive and neutral thoughts.

Isn't the trick, to observe them as they arise and pass, and that the concern is ending up with a chain of thoughts due to poor mindfulness and by acting on such thoughts?

Hello Rocky
I'm confused about karma and vipaka.  I know karma is meant to be action, but one talks about karmic effects, which I now learn are vipaka and are different and able to be separated in time from the original action.  Why did I not know about vipaka?  I've read a lot about Buddhist thought, practice and history in the past three years, since I finished my Catholic theology studies, and had some knowledge prior to then.  I'm not a beginner, but here comes vipaka out of the blue. I've obviously been studying the wrong materials.  Perhaps I should spend more time in Access to Insight, but the material I have read there has left me a bit cold.  Sorry.

If karma as action produces a karmic effect (from the action, i.e. vipaka), then there must be something in the action that does so.  Is it like firing a high-powered rifle on a rifle range?  When I pull the trigger the next thing I know is that the target has been hit.  The target is a long way from me and I have no awareness of the bullet passing through the air.  It's just "bang!", then "thwack" way off in the distance, but the effect is entirely a product of my pulling the trigger.  So with karma, both cause and effect are inherent in the action, initially potentially and then, if the action is completed, in actuality.

So with thought, or intention.  Mere thought would have no karmic effect.  If I think "mmm, I wouldn't mind getting into bed with her", but then let the thought go, as one does most of the time, then I can't see any karma being accrued, unless one takes declarations such as the sermon on the mount (commiting adultery with the eyes) literally.  However, if I form an intention to get the young lady into bed with me then karma is present - an intention is a mental action - the intention both constitutes and accrues karma.  It has a karmic effect.  

But my grasp of the philosophy is shaky.  If in fact an intention is not an action of a mental kind; if the action/karma takes place only in some physical or mediating form to do good or harm, e.g. helping an old lady across the road (good), telling lies about someone to others (malicious gossip - bad), then I would need to concede the point.  But one thing I believe is constant in Buddhadharma is that the "thought" or the intention is where karma has its roots.  Action follows thought, or at least proceeds from a mindset that gives rise to that action.  As it says in the Dhammapada, and we all know it:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage... If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. (Max Muller)

Or you may prefer Thanissaro Bhikkhu's version: Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart, made of the heart. If you speak or act with a corrupted heart, then suffering follows you — as the wheel of the cart, the track of the ox that pulls it.

You're very right.

It can be quite confusing.

It's true that our mindset can control our being.

A speaker I was listening too went further.
She said that we can't control what pops into our heads as our thoughts are random.
Through lack of awareness, attachment or clinging to these thoughts will lead to problems.

There's no doubt in my opinion, our need for regular sitting and mindfulness practice.
These cultivate concentration and awareness allowing us to view our thoughts without attachment.
They will eventually fade away leaving us in the present.

Everything depends on everything else.
The speaker went on to describe that attempting to eliminate evil thoughts is itself desire and results in clinging and attachment.
She went on to say that we can achieve wise thoughts for others without desire or clinging by practicing Metta towards those who are the subject of your thoughts.

Edited by rockyysdt, 2012-02-10 15:35:13.

[Jawnie]

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-10 15:32:56, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-10 13:23:03, said:

rockyysdt, on 2012-02-10 12:03:52, said:

Hi X.

Many Buddhist misuse the word kharma , using it to describe ones destiny:  Oh, it's my Kharma.

This can lead people to become fatalistic.

lsn't kharma an action and Vipaka the fruits of the action?

I wasn't aware that thought itself is negative kharma.

Many if not all are capable and do have dark thoughts as well as positive and neutral thoughts.

Isn't the trick, to observe them as they arise and pass, and that the concern is ending up with a chain of thoughts due to poor mindfulness and by acting on such thoughts?

Hello Rocky
I'm confused about karma and vipaka.  I know karma is meant to be action, but one talks about karmic effects, which I now learn are vipaka and are different and able to be separated in time from the original action.  Why did I not know about vipaka?  I've read a lot about Buddhist thought, practice and history in the past three years, since I finished my Catholic theology studies, and had some knowledge prior to then.  I'm not a beginner, but here comes vipaka out of the blue. I've obviously been studying the wrong materials.  Perhaps I should spend more time in Access to Insight, but the material I have read there has left me a bit cold.  Sorry.

If karma as action produces a karmic effect (from the action, i.e. vipaka), then there must be something in the action that does so.  Is it like firing a high-powered rifle on a rifle range?  When I pull the trigger the next thing I know is that the target has been hit.  The target is a long way from me and I have no awareness of the bullet passing through the air.  It's just "bang!", then "thwack" way off in the distance, but the effect is entirely a product of my pulling the trigger.  So with karma, both cause and effect are inherent in the action, initially potentially and then, if the action is completed, in actuality.

So with thought, or intention.  Mere thought would have no karmic effect.  If I think "mmm, I wouldn't mind getting into bed with her", but then let the thought go, as one does most of the time, then I can't see any karma being accrued, unless one takes declarations such as the sermon on the mount (commiting adultery with the eyes) literally.  However, if I form an intention to get the young lady into bed with me then karma is present - an intention is a mental action - the intention both constitutes and accrues karma.  It has a karmic effect.  

But my grasp of the philosophy is shaky.  If in fact an intention is not an action of a mental kind; if the action/karma takes place only in some physical or mediating form to do good or harm, e.g. helping an old lady across the road (good), telling lies about someone to others (malicious gossip - bad), then I would need to concede the point.  But one thing I believe is constant in Buddhadharma is that the "thought" or the intention is where karma has its roots.  Action follows thought, or at least proceeds from a mindset that gives rise to that action.  As it says in the Dhammapada, and we all know it:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage... If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. (Max Muller)

Or you may prefer Thanissaro Bhikkhu's version: Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart, made of the heart. If you speak or act with a corrupted heart, then suffering follows you — as the wheel of the cart, the track of the ox that pulls it.

You're very right.

It can be quite confusing.

It's true that our mindset can control our being.

A speaker I was listening too went further.
She said that we can't control what pops into our heads as our thoughts are random.
Through lack of awareness, attachment or clinging to these thoughts will lead to problems.

There's no doubt in my opinion, our need for regular sitting and mindfulness practice.
These cultivate concentration and awareness allowing us to view our thoughts without attachment.
They will eventually fade away leaving us in the present.

Everything depends on everything else.
The speaker went on to describe that attempting to eliminate evil thoughts is itself desire and results in clinging and attachment.
She went on to say that we can achieve wise thoughts for others without desire or clinging by practicing Metta towards those who are the subject of your thoughts.

The semantic and vocabulary conundrum here is not much different than the previous grammar lectures: they are off point.  

Call it "Twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum", "toe-may-toe or toe-ma-toe", or "ham with mustard, without mustard, or mustard on the side", the point is there are consequences for your good, neutral, and negative actions, whether words, thoughts and actions.

Merit is the consequence of the positive actions.

Edited by Jawnie, 2012-02-11 21:37:39.

[sabaijai]

249,000 Google hits for Vipāka, and Access to Insight doesn't even make the first page.


https://www.google.c...&bih=643&ix=ucb

[Xangsamhua]

sabaijai, on 2012-02-12 04:46:44, said:

249,000 Google hits for Vipāka, and Access to Insight doesn't even make the first page.

Well, we live and learn. Maybe I should study from Google rather than books. :-)

But I suspect the reason I haven't come across vipaka in the thousands of pages I've read, or it hasn't registered, is that it's not that important.  It doesn't add much, if anything, to our understanding of the importance and effect of intention, moral or otherwise and action based on it.  

It also seems to be redundant.  If intention is fundamental and kamma is in the action (is the action), then to create another word for the inherent consequence, through action, of the intention is superfluous, or of minor value.  Vipaka can only refer to outcomes flowing from consequences that are already inherent in the formation of morally significant intentions.

So, when in the Vipaka Sutta, the Buddha warns his disciples that violating the precepts will "lead them to hell", he is speaking of the long-term consequences of a karmic effect that has already resulted from the intention to kill, steal or whatever.  And in warning them of the hellish outcomes of their misbehaviour the Buddha is not speaking of moral effects at all.  It’s pretty much just “do the crime and do the time”; no more moral than the awareness of consequences that any criminal may have.

Perhaps it’s for that reason that the author of the “What the Buddha Said” website: defines vipaka as“any karmically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc.), which is the result of advantageous or disadvantageous intentional action”
http://what-buddha-s...u_v/vipaaka.htm

That is, vipaka refers not so much, if at all, to kamma, but to pleasant or unpleasant consequences of unwise behaviour.  As we have seen, the Buddha, in the Vipaka Sutta, did not refer to the moral implications of breaking the precepts, only the unpleasant (hellish) consequences.  Kamma, however, is inextricably linked with moral value.  If an intention is formed to perform an immoral action, e.g. steal from the boss, the moral effect is simultaneous.  It’s possible, of course, that one may commit an offence like this and never get caught, enjoying the spoils without any observable consequence.  Of course, one can then say that the karma will take effect in a future life, but the karmic effect has its roots in the initial morally corrupt intention.

[sabaijai]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-12 07:23:13, said:

sabaijai, on 2012-02-12 04:46:44, said:

249,000 Google hits for Vipāka, and Access to Insight doesn't even make the first page.

Well, we live and learn. Maybe I should study from Google rather than books. :-)

But I suspect the reason I haven't come across vipaka in the thousands of pages I've read, or it hasn't registered, is that it's not that important.  It doesn't add much, if anything, to our understanding of the importance and effect of intention, moral or otherwise and action based on it.  

It also seems to be redundant.  If intention is fundamental and kamma is in the action (is the action), then to create another word for the inherent consequence, through action, of the intention is superfluous, or of minor value.  Vipaka can only refer to outcomes flowing from consequences that are already inherent in the formation of morally significant intentions.

So, when in the Vipaka Sutta, the Buddha warns his disciples that violating the precepts will "lead them to hell", he is speaking of the long-term consequences of a karmic effect that has already resulted from the intention to kill, steal or whatever.  And in warning them of the hellish outcomes of their misbehaviour the Buddha is not speaking of moral effects at all.  It’s pretty much just “do the crime and do the time”; no more moral than the awareness of consequences that any criminal may have.

Perhaps it’s for that reason that the author of the “What the Buddha Said” website: defines vipaka as“any karmically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc.), which is the result of advantageous or disadvantageous intentional action”
http://what-buddha-s...u_v/vipaaka.htm

That is, vipaka refers not so much, if at all, to kamma, but to pleasant or unpleasant consequences of unwise behaviour.  As we have seen, the Buddha, in the Vipaka Sutta, did not refer to the moral implications of breaking the precepts, only the unpleasant (hellish) consequences.  Kamma, however, is inextricably linked with moral value.  If an intention is formed to perform an immoral action, e.g. steal from the boss, the moral effect is simultaneous.  It’s possible, of course, that one may commit an offence like this and never get caught, enjoying the spoils without any observable consequence.  Of course, one can then say that the karma will take effect in a future life, but the karmic effect has its roots in the initial morally corrupt intention.

Not so much? Vipaka is the only result of kamma, including volition, according to traditional Theravada interpretations, ie I have never seen an 'immediate' or 'intermediate' result as occurring prior to vipaka. The actual time span between kamma (volition or action) and its fruittion (vipaka) is irrelevant. It could come immediately, next week, next eon. But there is only one vipaka per kamma as I read it.

If you mean that once kamma arises, vipaka is inevitable, and thus not important to examine, yes that may be true. Kamma as a study topic is pretty deep, and anything correlaries or details aside from knowing it's best to cultivate kusala kamma are academic.

That said, vipaka is a pretty common topic of discussion among people following Theravada. I remember learning about it during my first year of study at Wat Bowon, which was also my first year in Thailand. And have continued to hear teachings on kamma and vipaka from various teachers around the country.

Even the forest monks taught about it.

Quote

The wise Thai monk Ajahn Chah taught that when people do selfish or wicked things in private, thinking that if they don’t get caught, they won’t face the consequences of their actions simply display a lack of understanding of the Dharma. He has emphasized that we never really get away with anything. But, if we practice according to the Dharma, then we can watch the results of previous actions (karma-vipaka), allowing them the space to arise without reacting to them and creating more karmic reverberations. Venerable Chah relates this process to knowing the universal characteristic that everything is impermanent (anicca). The fruit of actions (karma-phala) will inevitably ripen one day; but if we keep in mind that it is impermanent, we can bear it well.

[Xangsamhua]

sabaijai, on 2012-02-13 00:17:10, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-12 07:23:13, said:

That is, vipaka refers not so much, if at all, to kamma, but to pleasant or unpleasant consequences of unwise behaviour.  As we have seen, the Buddha, in the Vipaka Sutta, did not refer to the moral implications of breaking the precepts, only the unpleasant (hellish) consequences.  Kamma, however, is inextricably linked with moral value.  If an intention is formed to perform an immoral action, e.g. steal from the boss, the moral effect is simultaneous.  It’s possible, of course, that one may commit an offence like this and never get caught, enjoying the spoils without any observable consequence.  Of course, one can then say that the karma will take effect in a future life, but the karmic effect has its roots in the initial morally corrupt intention.

Not so much? Vipaka is the only result of kamma, including volition, according to traditional Theravada interpretations, ie I have never seen an 'immediate' or 'intermediate' result as occurring prior to vipaka. The actual time span between kamma (volition or action) and its fruittion (vipaka) is irrelevant. It could come immediately, next week, next eon. But there is only one vipaka per kamma as I read it.

If you mean that once kamma arises, vipaka is inevitable, and thus not important to examine, yes that may be true. Kamma as a study topic is pretty deep, and anything correlaries or details aside from knowing it's best to cultivate kusala kamma are academic.

That said, vipaka is a pretty common topic of discussion among people following Theravada. I remember learning about it during my first year of study at Wat Bowon, which was also my first year in Thailand. And have continued to hear teachings on kamma and vipaka from various teachers around the country.

Even the forest monks taught about it.

Quote

The wise Thai monk Ajahn Chah taught that when people do selfish or wicked things in private, thinking that if they don’t get caught, they won’t face the consequences of their actions simply display a lack of understanding of the Dharma. He has emphasized that we never really get away with anything. But, if we practice according to the Dharma, then we can watch the results of previous actions (karma-vipaka), allowing them the space to arise without reacting to them and creating more karmic reverberations. Venerable Chah relates this process to knowing the universal characteristic that everything is impermanent (anicca). The fruit of actions (karma-phala) will inevitably ripen one day; but if we keep in mind that it is impermanent, we can bear it well.

Thanks Sabaijai

I think I can now concede and withdraw.  Having not had direct instruction in Buddhist teaching and being reliant, therefore, on books and forums such as this, I've obviously got some gaps that I'm not aware of.  Now I am aware, at least in regard to vipaka, and have learnt much in the past few days.

My interests are primarily historical rather than doctrinal, and books that take an historical approach are probably less likely, unless dealing more directly with the matter, to give space to the teaching on vipaka.  A K Warder makes passing reference to it only three times in Indian Buddhism (but refers to action/kamma 27 times).  Richard Gombrich makes no reference to it at all in his book on the history of Theravada, but that is a social history, so why would he?  But in What the Buddha Thought, he also makes no reference to vipaka.  In Development of the Early Buddhist Concept of Kamma/Karma, James Paul McDermott has seven references to vipaka, including one discussion over three pages, in which he cites the commentaries to the effect that "vipaka refers only to mental states" (p. 87).  When I go home I'll take a look at Paul Williams' books on Mahayana philosophy and see what he says.  It's three years since I read them.

Thanks for your gentle prodding.  It demonstrates once again that this forum can be a good platform for development in understanding the Buddhadhamma.

Edited by Xangsamhua, 2012-02-13 07:58:48.

[Xangsamhua]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-13 07:56:34, said:

My interests are primarily historical rather than doctrinal, and books that take an historical approach are probably less likely, unless dealing more directly with the matter, to give space to the teaching on vipaka.  A K Warder makes passing reference to it only three times in Indian Buddhism (but refers to action/kamma 27 times).  Richard Gombrich makes no reference to it at all in his book on the history of Theravada, but that is a social history, so why would he?  But in What the Buddha Thought, he also makes no reference to vipaka.  In Development of the Early Buddhist Concept of Kamma/Karma, James Paul McDermott has seven references to vipaka, including one discussion over three pages, in which he cites the commentaries to the effect that "vipaka refers only to mental states" (p. 87).  When I go home I'll take a look at Paul Williams' books on Mahayana philosophy and see what he says.  It's three years since I read them.

Thanks for your gentle prodding.  It demonstrates once again that this forum can be a good platform for development in understanding the Buddhadhamma.

Just following up a little from my previous post. Perhaps vipaka is more a topic discussed more in Theravada circles.  I found no reference to it in Paul Williams's Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, but he has several pages of discusion on karman (kamma).  He also speaks about conditions for karman/kamma to occur, including intention.  His note [23] on p. 250 is interesting and pertinent, I think.  I shall quote most of it.

"It might be suggested that if karman is to be thought of as moral or immoral, then it must be more than just the intention.  Clearly if the immoral act were to be the intention to kill then nothing would be added morally or indeed in terms of following the Buddhist path by actually carrying out the killing.  Buddhist tradition, recognizing this, has added that for a full karman to have occurred various other factors are necessary.  One must recognize the object for what it is (that is, in the case of killing, recognize that X is a living creature), have the intention to do the deed, actually perform the deed, and the expected and hoped for result of the deed must really occur (i.e. the being dies).  The Theravada tradition on this topic ... precedes this list of four with one other, that the object must be in some sense present (i.e. there must be a living creature).  A good Tibetan source ... adds a further factor, the delusion involved.  This in fact refers to the presence of greed, hatred or delusion.  The effect of this is to leave open the possibility of performing e.g. an act of killing without the presence of greed, hatred, or delusion."

I might add that the last couple of lines opens up a can of worms and has led to the commission of horrific crimes by people who believe that "non-deluded" and "dispassionate" killing (of civilians, prisoners of war, etc) is justified by Mahayana (especially Zen) teaching.  I shall post later to the forum on this topic.  There has already been some reference to it in the Buddhist Books thread in a review of Brian Victoria's book.

[sabaijai]

Yes, Xangsamhua, it is primarily a topic of discussion in Theravada, popular among abhidhammists in particular. Glad to be of help

One reason vipaka is worth examining or at least thinking about revolves around the fact that our reaction to vipaka experienced in the present moment creates new kamma. In other words our kamma doesn't come out of nowhere, it is in response to vipaka from previous kamma. Being aware that these cycles of kamma-vipaka continually condition our responses may make us more mindful of the present moment. Knowing how kamma creates vipaka may prompt us to be more careful about our thoughts and actions since these will come back to us as vipaka.

Negative kamma leads to negative vipaka. Experiencing negative vipaka. we are prone to experience aversion or confusion which may in turn cause us to react by creating yet more negative kamma.

[lungmi]

Bun you cannot make (Tambun)
Dana (generosity) is one of the highest value of Buddhism.
You can make much Tambun to buy your future life and so on.
It works only for some monks and her stupid business. They can do, they need food, they sell the Buddha, Prostitutes in Thailand only sell their body.
Dana means: You give what you have, do a good job --- and forget it. If it was good--- good comes back --- but don't wait for it.
If you wait that something comes back for your investment in tambun, your a a looser (law of nature)

[fabianfred]

To get the full karma from an act of killing (for example) there needs to be present five conditions...
one... a living being
two... one must know that it is a living being
three... one must intend to kill it
four... one takes action to kill it
five... it dies as a result of our efforts
If any of those are not present then the full karmic weight is not received.....but there would still be a karmic debt depending upon the circumstances.
Every action is unique due to differences in both the one doing the action as well as the one receiving the suffering. (looking at negative or unskillful karma...and also this applies to the opposite....positive karma or merit.)
My teacher LP Jaran likes to say that karma also has interest which has to be paid as well as the main lump sum.

[fabianfred]

Yes Lungmi..... giving without expecting anything in return is the way of the Ariyas.
Hoping for some benefit diminishes the act.