Free Will And Karma

[Khnom]

My first post... :-)

If I’m not mistaken, by definition, Karma is “path-independent”. This means all decisions and actions, no matter how different, lead to the same consequence as Karma pre-dictates.

So how can Free Will exist if all our choices deliver us to the same destinations regardless? How can we blaze new trails or get new future results and improve the lot if all we can do is execute the Karmic system? Are we merely droids?

[rychrde]

Hi and welcome to TV!

where did you get the 'path-independent' definition?

I don't much like discussing either karma or free will as don't believe in either!

However, here is an interesting new bit of philosophy born out of the mathematics of complex systems - it may stop one going round in circles. Philosophy has traditionally thought of determinism and predictability as essentially the same. If our path is predetermined then the end is predictable, at least in theory. This comes from our classical mechanics where if we have a correct equation for a dynamical system we can predict its state at some future point without having to go through each step along the path. This is what we do by solving the equation for set parameters. However, the mathematics of complex systems has revealed that the two concepts of determinism and predictability are actually different. Complex systems are wholly deterministic - we have a set equation with a set starting point. If we run the system with the same parameters we get the same results. Yes, some complex systems can be very sensitive to starting points but that's another matter! Same starting points equals same end points. The point here is that we have no formula to predict the future state of such a system apart from the running the simulation. The future is dependent upon the past but there is no way to predict it. It is thus entirely possible for the universe to be deterministic and yet still unpredictable. Same goes for us!

rych

[chownah]

My first post... :-)

If I’m not mistaken, by definition, Karma is “path-independent”. This means all decisions and actions, no matter how different, lead to the same consequence as Karma pre-dictates.

So how can Free Will exist if all our choices deliver us to the same destinations regardless? How can we blaze new trails or get new future results and improve the lot if all we can do is execute the Karmic system? Are we merely droids?

The Theravada Buddhist view of karma that I most frequently hear is that karma is defined as "intention". When you do something with intention that intenation sets up a process which will bear fruit either sooner or later and the fruits of the karma (intention) are what are considered to be inevitable. I know that many people don't look at it that way but after reading some scriptures and lots of internet discussions it seems that many people's views on this are incorrect. For instance the Buddha is reported to have said specifically that "intention is kamma"....and he also is reported to have talked about the fuits of our intentions too.

The Buddha is said to have taught that all things are conditioned...but I don't believe he taught that the fruits of past kamma (intentions) is the only thing conditioning us. The Buddha often exorts his followers to make efforts to advance along the path and so to me it seems that he is saying that our efforts can condition us as well.....if all efforts (or lack thereof) was preordained then what would be the point of the Buddha telling people to make efforts?

On the other hand, it might just be that free will does not exist....I don't know and frankly can't think of a way to prove if it exists or not. I have heard it said that everyone (with the exception of perhaps a few psychotic people) actually do believe in free will regardless of what they say as witnessed by the fact that they might study some material to learn something but if they really believed in predestiny then there would be no point in putting out the effort to study something because either you are destined to learn it or not so why exert effort......I'm not too convinced by this arguement but its about the best one I've heard so far.

Chownah

[fabianfred]

A lot of people... westerners and asians, such as Hindus... have got the wrong idea about karma.

It doesn't mean that everything is pre-determined and bound to happen.

Karma is the natural law of cause and effect... so if you do a negative action it gives a negative result, or positive gives a positive result... some people prefer to call it 'good' or 'bad'.... some 'positive' or 'negative'.... some 'skillful' or 'unskillful'... but they all mean the same thing..

To be a true follower of the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma) it is necessary that one has a sincere belief in karma and rebirth.... without this one will not be able to achieve the state of nirvana

[fabianfred]

the important thing to know is that although we cannot change the karma we have alredy created, we can change ourselves and the way we act so as not to create any unskillful karma in the future.

the positive and negative karma do not cancel each other out... unlike a bank account which is either in the red or the black... it is like a seperate account for each.

However, if we do a lot of good and little bad... it can so dilute the bad that it hardly has a chance to give any result... like a spoonful of oil in a glass of water makes it undrinkable... but in a swimming-pool wouldn't be noticeable...

doing something like Vipassana meditation... which gives the greatest result... is like running so fast that any negative karma from the past hasn't a chance to catch us up and have an effect

[OxfordWill]

If there is such a thing as free will then it has many subsets/dimesions. The majority of philosophers these days consider the idea of free will to be incoherent at best.

[RedQualia]

If there is such a thing as free will then it has many subsets/dimesions. The majority of philosophers these days consider the idea of free will to be incoherent at best.

Depends on how one defines "free will," of course. Many argue for a sort of "lowest threshold" kind of free will that seems to make sense. The idea is that we are free to set long term goals, for example (who cannot dream?). And given a choice between "a" and "b," we are free to choose either a or b. That is, we're free to make a choice, given the parameters of any situation. To the degree we can evaluate the choice completely, it may seem pre-determined. But we do not always evaluate such choices completely, and so do not always make the best choice, introducing a bit of randomness. And given apparently "equal" choices, we could go either way. I think Dan Dennett argues along these lines, though he's not Buddhist.

"Karma as intention" plays well for me, personally, and seems to mesh with the above thoughts on free will reasonably well. But then, there's no one take on Buddhism, is there?

Ken

[sabaijai]

Karma/kamma translates as 'action', quite precisely, in both Sanskrit and Pali - not intention. Intention plays an important role in the system, but that's another topic.

What follows from an action is its result, or vipaka.

Khnom, a search for 'free will' in this subforum yields a couple of other threads that may interest you:

topics with 'free will'

And this one in particular:

Is there free will in Buddhism?

[IMA_FARANG]

My first post... :-)

If I'm not mistaken, by definition, Karma is "path-independent". This means all decisions and actions, no matter how different, lead to the same consequence as Karma pre-dictates.

So how can Free Will exist if all our choices deliver us to the same destinations regardless? How can we blaze new trails or get new future results and improve the lot if all we can do is execute the Karmic system? Are we merely droids?

In my opinion (and that counts for little) anyone's kharma can be shaped by the choices one makes in this life. And those choices are determined partly by one's free will. If you believe in the idea of rebirth (if not bodily, but as a spiritual entity, or soul that is reborn) then you see how it makes sense that one's actions in a previous life determines what happens in the next life. In that way, through many rebirths, the "soul" will cleanse itself of its imperfections and eventually come to the path of elightenment.

But all that is not the point. The point is now, and how you should live in this time and place. What code and morality do you live by today and what choices do you make?

Before you worry about your future, shouldn't you you take care of your now.

<_<

Edited June 20, 2007 by IMA_FARANG

[chownah]

Karma/kamma translates as 'action', quite precisely, in both Sanskrit and Pali - not intention. Intention plays an important role in the system, but that's another topic.

What follows from an action is its result, or vipaka.

Khnom, a search for 'free will' in this subforum yields a couple of other threads that may interest you:

topics with 'free will'

And this one in particular:

Is there free will in Buddhism?

Some more information on the meaning of "Kamma".

From:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...han.html#part-5 )

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

(edit insert: this is the Buddha speaking)

and From:

Buddhist Dictionary

Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines,

by MahaThera Nyanatiloka

(from http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...dex_dict.n2.htm )

"Kamma: advantageous or disadvantageous action; Sanskrit karma, Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings........................................."

There are Buddhists who do not agree with the notion of kamma being intention but this idea is fairly well accepted in Theravada Buddhism.

[fabianfred]

In my opinion (and that counts for little) anyone's kharma can be shaped by the choices one makes in this life. And those choices are determined partly by one's free will. If you believe in the idea of rebirth (if not bodily, but as a spiritual entity, or soul that is reborn) then you see how it makes sense that one's actions in a previous life determines what happens in the next life. In that way, through many rebirths, the "soul" will cleanse itself of its imperfections and eventually come to the path of elightenment.

But all that is not the point. The point is now, and how you should live in this time and place. What code and morality do you live by today and what choices do you make?

Before you worry about your future, shouldn't you you take care of your now.

<_<

I used to think like that..... when i first came upon the idea of reincarnation... it sounds good ... that we gradually improve ourselves each lifetime...

Since I studied Theravada Buddhism more deeply, I now know this is wrong....

Nobody gets to Nirvana by accident..... we have to physically work for it... by practising the four Foundations of mindfulness.........

We have all been caught in the cycle of existence since beginningless time... so if we all gradually improved... we would all have reached perfection by now..... the reason we still are stuck in the cycle of samsara is because of ignorance of the truth.... a truth only expounded by the very rare appearance of a Buddha

[sabaijai]

Karma/kamma translates as 'action', quite precisely, in both Sanskrit and Pali - not intention. Intention plays an important role in the system, but that's another topic.

What follows from an action is its result, or vipaka.

Khnom, a search for 'free will' in this subforum yields a couple of other threads that may interest you:

topics with 'free will'

And this one in particular:

Is there free will in Buddhism?

Some more information on the meaning of "Kamma".

From:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...han.html#part-5 )

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

(edit insert: this is the Buddha speaking)

and From:

Buddhist Dictionary

Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines,

by MahaThera Nyanatiloka

(from http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...dex_dict.n2.htm )

"Kamma: advantageous or disadvantageous action; Sanskrit karma, Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings........................................."

There are Buddhists who do not agree with the notion of kamma being intention but this idea is fairly well accepted in Theravada Buddhism.

As a former Sanskrit and Pali student, I can confirm that karma is simply a noun form of the S/P root /kr./ which means 'to do' or to 'act'.

I disagree that it's well accepted in Theravada Buddhism that kamma = intention, rather it seems to be your interpretation (perhaps others' as well). If intention were karma, then merely to intend to do something would result in the same vipaka as doing it, and according to the Abhidhamma this is not so.

It's true that each action has differing vipaka depending on the intention, but that's only because the intention itself is an action, as are all citta, and it conditions the resulting kammic chain. To then regard 'intention' and 'karma/kamma' as synonymous goes a bit far in my opinion.

The word 'intention' is mentioned only once in the Thanissaro Bhikkhu link you posted. 'Intention, I tell you, is kamma,' I take to mean that intention is one kind of kamma. Not the beginning and end of it.

The second link you posted further elucidates how 'kammical intentions' are kammacetanā, as distinct from kāya-kamma (body kamma), vacī-kamma (speech kamma) and mano-kamma (mind kamma).

This reminds me of the debate the ISKCON devotees used to have with my Sanskrit professor about the term 'yoga', which they insisted was synonymous with 'Krishna consciousness'. 'That's putting the cart before horse!' he would say. Just as Krishna consciousness can be (accurately) described as a type of yoga, so intention can be described as a type of kamma. But not vice versa.

At least this is how I understand kamma (what little I understand, it's a deep and complex topic) and what I've been taught. From what I understand, it is also not the view of orthodox Thai Buddhism, representing the largest Theravada Buddhist community in the world

*Note that Ven Thanissaro's translation of the Vipaka Sutta contains no mention of intention.

[chownah]

Karma/kamma translates as 'action', quite precisely, in both Sanskrit and Pali - not intention. Intention plays an important role in the system, but that's another topic.

What follows from an action is its result, or vipaka.

Khnom, a search for 'free will' in this subforum yields a couple of other threads that may interest you:

topics with 'free will'

And this one in particular:

Is there free will in Buddhism?

Some more information on the meaning of "Kamma".

From:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...han.html#part-5 )

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

(edit insert: this is the Buddha speaking)

and From:

Buddhist Dictionary

Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines,

by MahaThera Nyanatiloka

(from http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...dex_dict.n2.htm )

"Kamma: advantageous or disadvantageous action; Sanskrit karma, Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings........................................."

There are Buddhists who do not agree with the notion of kamma being intention but this idea is fairly well accepted in Theravada Buddhism.

As a former Sanskrit and Pali student, I can confirm that karma is simply a noun form of the S/P root /kr./ which means 'to do' or to 'act'.

I disagree that it's well accepted in Theravada Buddhism that kamma = intention, rather it seems to be your interpretation (perhaps others' as well). If intention were karma, then merely to intend to do something would result in the same vipaka as doing it, and according to the Abhidhamma this is not so.

It's true that each action has differing vipaka depending on the intention, but that's only because the intention itself is an action, as are all citta, and it conditions the resulting kammic chain. To then regard 'intention' and 'karma/kamma' as synonymous goes a bit far in my opinion.

The word 'intention' is mentioned only once in the Thanissaro Bhikkhu link you posted. 'Intention, I tell you, is kamma,' I take to mean that intention is one kind of kamma. Not the beginning and end of it.

The second link you posted further elucidates how 'kammical intentions' are kammacetanā, as distinct from kāya-kamma (body kamma), vacī-kamma (speech kamma) and mano-kamma (mind kamma).

This reminds me of the debate the ISKCON devotees used to have with my Sanskrit professor about the term 'yoga', which they insisted was synonymous with 'Krishna consciousness'. 'That's putting the cart before horse!' he would say. Just as Krishna consciousness can be (accurately) described as a type of yoga, so intention can be described as a type of kamma. But not vice versa.

At least this is how I understand kamma (what little I understand, it's a deep and complex topic) and what I've been taught. From what I understand, it is also not not the view of orthodox Thai Buddhism, representing the largest Theravada Buddhist community in the world

*Note that Ven Thanissaro's translation of the Vipaka Sutta contains no mention of intention.

I have no desire to try to change your views on the meaning of kamma and am perfectly happy for us to disagree on this matter. I simply would like to point out that the Buddha said explicitly that intention is Kamma and I have a difficult time dismissing that....you can go read the entire Sutta (I suggest others do the same) and see what you think he meant by this...I think it is clear after reading the entire Sutta. Also MahaThera Nyanatiloka indicates, "kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions..........." and I have a difficult time dismissing this as well as Maha Thera Nyanatiloka was one of the formost Buddha scholars of the previous century. But there are no doubt other references that I am not aware of which deal with this matter so I do not take my view to be a definitive statement on the matter but simply my views....views being things which will hopefully one day be transcended.

Chownah

[sleepyjohn]

The reference from the Buddha:

"the Buddha said explicitly that intention is Kamma"

which I believe is a correct reference to what it is said he said, is not really the same as

"karma is defined as "intention" "

which may be the cause of the misunderstanding.

Anyway my two pennies worth is that it may be worthwhile coming to terms with determinism. It broadens the picture enormously.

The fact is it's pretty much accepted. To not accept it is like saying "Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect except my left leg"......or in this case the physical mechanism that creates my mental mechanism. One must then investigate slotting it into one's opinions on something like Buddhism. Trying to do something like this might teach one about the paucity of the concepts which all this philosophising kicks off. Which is in itself a clue. Because there can of course be no answer. Not in words anyway, and not in thoughts.

As I've posted elsewhere all this talk of rebirth to my mind just complicates the issue. Try just forgetting everything you ever read or got told. A birth is an illusion so why all the talk of rebirth?

Edited June 20, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[chownah]

The reference from the Buddha:

"the Buddha said explicitly that intention is Kamma"

which I believe is a correct reference to what it is said he said, is not really the same as

"karma is defined as "intention" "

which may be the cause of the misunderstanding.

Anyway my two pennies worth is that it may be worthwhile coming to terms with determinism. It broadens the picture enormously.

The fact is it's pretty much accepted. To not accept it is like saying "Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect except my left leg"......or in this case the physical mechanism that creates my mental mechanism. One must then investigate slotting it into one's opinions on something like Buddhism. Trying to do something like this might teach one about the paucity of the concepts which all this philosophising kicks off. Which is in itself a clue. Because there can of course be no answer. Not in words anyway, and not in thoughts.

As I've posted elsewhere all this talk of rebirth to my mind just complicates the issue. Try just forgetting everything you ever read or got told. A birth is an illusion so why all the talk of rebirth?

"Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect".....quite a big assumption....maybe none of it runs on cause and effect....or maybe only some of it....or maybe it runs on cause and effect and also something else which has not been fully discovered yet.

"the physical mechanism that creates my mental mechanism.".....another big assumption.....maybe your mental mechanism creates the deluded concept you take as a physical mechanism....or maybe the mental mechanism is quite self sufficient and only happens to presently reside closely associated with a physical mechanism.

Chownah

[Plus]

Let me follow many our esteemed posters and start by saying none of you have a clue what karma is.

I do, so listen.

Philosophy has traditionally thought of determinism and predictability as essentially the same. If our path is predetermined then the end is predictable, at least in theory. This comes from our classical mechanics where if we have a correct equation for a dynamical system we can predict its state at some future point without having to go through each step along the path. This is what we do by solving the equation for set parameters.

Classic mechanics - yes, real world - no. In real world this theory fails the first test - can we determine the state of a system at all? The answer is we cannot - the simple act of measurement will change the state of the system, and the more precisely we want it to measure, the greater effect will be. It seems unbelievable when we measure something with a ruler it shrinks, but when it comes to real precision, on a molecular level, for example, the effects are undeniable. On a subatomic level it is even theoretically impossible to measure the position of particles, or their speed.

It is theoretically impossible to predict the behavior of an atom, too. We can only predict a degree of certainty that this particular atom will behave in each particular way. Something like 9/1 that it will remain in this state for longer than an hour. That means that out of ten atoms one will most certainly behave differently. Which one? Theroretically impossible to predict. There's also a slim chance that NONE of ten atoms will behave like we predicted.

That leaves a lot of room for divine intervention, btw.

It also means that science hasn't got a leg to stand on in classical terms - it cannot determine anything, only predict, based on previous observations, that things usually happen this way with this percentage of certainty. Not very differenct from astrologers or palm readers who look at your hand and say that people with lines like this USUALLY end up being rich or poor or sick or whatever.

[rychrde]

ah the God of the Gaps! old and lame story.

btw where was your wisdom on karma?

[sleepyjohn]

The reference from the Buddha:

"the Buddha said explicitly that intention is Kamma"

which I believe is a correct reference to what it is said he said, is not really the same as

"karma is defined as "intention" "

which may be the cause of the misunderstanding.

Anyway my two pennies worth is that it may be worthwhile coming to terms with determinism. It broadens the picture enormously.

The fact is it's pretty much accepted. To not accept it is like saying "Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect except my left leg"......or in this case the physical mechanism that creates my mental mechanism. One must then investigate slotting it into one's opinions on something like Buddhism. Trying to do something like this might teach one about the paucity of the concepts which all this philosophising kicks off. Which is in itself a clue. Because there can of course be no answer. Not in words anyway, and not in thoughts.

As I've posted elsewhere all this talk of rebirth to my mind just complicates the issue. Try just forgetting everything you ever read or got told. A birth is an illusion so why all the talk of rebirth?

"Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect".....quite a big assumption....maybe none of it runs on cause and effect....or maybe only some of it....or maybe it runs on cause and effect and also something else which has not been fully discovered yet.

"the physical mechanism that creates my mental mechanism.".....another big assumption.....maybe your mental mechanism creates the deluded concept you take as a physical mechanism....or maybe the mental mechanism is quite self sufficient and only happens to presently reside closely associated with a physical mechanism.

Chownah

Chownah thankyou you're quite right I have no certainty of the things I suggest. I will always be able to find reasons for doubt if I look hard enough. I have however thought about it, and in the absence of anything I find more convincing I'll put my money on my assumptions and that's what counts for me.

ps: I cannot think of anything that doesn't run on cause and effect.

pps: I personally have no doubt that my consciousness is anything more than a useful tool evolved through natural selection. I also consider BTW that dukkha and the sense of self came about the same way. They need no longer be inscrutable or just received wisdom!

Neither of these assumptions are the result of blind faith. They are the result of chains of thought hopefully automatically employing causality, falsifiability and comparison.

[chownah]

Sleepyjohn,

I always thought that things run by themselves and the concept of cause and effect is simply a human attempt at understanding and explaining how they run. If this is true then nothing "runs on" cause and effect....cause and effect would then just be pattern of thought.

Also, more specifically, there are some results from experiments into quantum science that challenge the concept of cause and effect.

Chownah

[sleepyjohn]

Sleepyjohn,

I always thought that things run by themselves and the concept of cause and effect is simply a human attempt at understanding and explaining how they run. If this is true then nothing "runs on" cause and effect....cause and effect would then just be pattern of thought.

Also, more specifically, there are some results from experiments into quantum science that challenge the concept of cause and effect.

Chownah

Chownah

couldn't agree more but we are running on the level of words and concepts in this forum. We can still attempt to point at things I think though.

Living in the "real world" which perhaps should be called the "unreal world", OK lets call it the mundane, we, if we hope to get somewhere, have to be adept enough to regularly step up and down between levels.

I'd be interested if you could pass on anything about your last reference......

[sabaijai]

Karma/kamma translates as 'action', quite precisely, in both Sanskrit and Pali - not intention. Intention plays an important role in the system, but that's another topic.

What follows from an action is its result, or vipaka.

Khnom, a search for 'free will' in this subforum yields a couple of other threads that may interest you:

topics with 'free will'

And this one in particular:

Is there free will in Buddhism?

Some more information on the meaning of "Kamma".

From:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...han.html#part-5 )

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

(edit insert: this is the Buddha speaking)

and From:

Buddhist Dictionary

Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines,

by MahaThera Nyanatiloka

(from http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...dex_dict.n2.htm )

"Kamma: advantageous or disadvantageous action; Sanskrit karma, Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings........................................."

There are Buddhists who do not agree with the notion of kamma being intention but this idea is fairly well accepted in Theravada Buddhism.

As a former Sanskrit and Pali student, I can confirm that karma is simply a noun form of the S/P root /kr./ which means 'to do' or to 'act'.

I disagree that it's well accepted in Theravada Buddhism that kamma = intention, rather it seems to be your interpretation (perhaps others' as well). If intention were karma, then merely to intend to do something would result in the same vipaka as doing it, and according to the Abhidhamma this is not so.

It's true that each action has differing vipaka depending on the intention, but that's only because the intention itself is an action, as are all citta, and it conditions the resulting kammic chain. To then regard 'intention' and 'karma/kamma' as synonymous goes a bit far in my opinion.

The word 'intention' is mentioned only once in the Thanissaro Bhikkhu link you posted. 'Intention, I tell you, is kamma,' I take to mean that intention is one kind of kamma. Not the beginning and end of it.

The second link you posted further elucidates how 'kammical intentions' are kammacetanā, as distinct from kāya-kamma (body kamma), vacī-kamma (speech kamma) and mano-kamma (mind kamma).

This reminds me of the debate the ISKCON devotees used to have with my Sanskrit professor about the term 'yoga', which they insisted was synonymous with 'Krishna consciousness'. 'That's putting the cart before horse!' he would say. Just as Krishna consciousness can be (accurately) described as a type of yoga, so intention can be described as a type of kamma. But not vice versa.

At least this is how I understand kamma (what little I understand, it's a deep and complex topic) and what I've been taught. From what I understand, it is also not not the view of orthodox Thai Buddhism, representing the largest Theravada Buddhist community in the world

*Note that Ven Thanissaro's translation of the Vipaka Sutta contains no mention of intention.

I have no desire to try to change your views on the meaning of kamma and am perfectly happy for us to disagree on this matter. I simply would like to point out that the Buddha said explicitly that intention is Kamma and I have a difficult time dismissing that....you can go read the entire Sutta (I suggest others do the same) and see what you think he meant by this...I think it is clear after reading the entire Sutta. Also MahaThera Nyanatiloka indicates, "kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions..........." and I have a difficult time dismissing this as well as Maha Thera Nyanatiloka was one of the formost Buddha scholars of the previous century. But there are no doubt other references that I am not aware of which deal with this matter so I do not take my view to be a definitive statement on the matter but simply my views....views being things which will hopefully one day be transcended.

Chownah

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

If intention were the sum total of kamma, there would be no need to add 'one does kamma by way of body, speech and intellect'. These deeds would become irrelevant in a philosophy that considered intention to be the beginning and end of kamma.

Standing alone, the notion that "intention is kamma' is analogous to the statement 'Snow is water', true in that word order but not in the reverse.

The Nyanatiloka reference as well classifies kamma into several categories, only one of which is intention. He continues at some length, in the Buddhist Dictionary entry, to describe all the various kinds of kamma, starting with:

The disadvantageous actions are of 3 kinds, conditioned by greed, or hate, or confusion.

This demonstrates that kamma (whether intending, thinking, speaking or acting) is in turn conditioned by other factors. So it's not the initial conditioning factor of kamma either.

Nyanatiloka finishes the kamma entry with verses from the Visuddhi Maggha:

'No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This view alone is right and true.

'And whilst the deeds and their results

Roll on, based on conditions all,

There no beginning can be seen,

Just as it is with seed and tree.' Vis.M XIX

Note the use of 'deeds' rather than intention.

In the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta intention is placed in the Mental Qualities frame of reference, as distinct from the Body, Mind and Feelings frames of reference. As with kamma, in mindfulness intending itself is a deed. Before you take a step, you intend; then you lift your foot, and so on. Kamma occurs at each moment in, not just in the intending. Intention may reoccur with each new action or component of a physical action (lifting, placing, touching, etc), and a completed action will represent a complex of mental and physical deeds.

When the intending follows from defilements (greed, hate, conceit, etc), it will result in akusala vipaka (unwholesome result). Or so the Tipitaka says, whether Sutta, Vinaya or Abhidhamma.

Citta (mind movement) arises with every action, whether mental or physical. Akusala citta --> akusala kamma --> akusala vipaka.

[chownah]

The basic definition of Kamma from Nyanatiloka's dictionary is as follows:

"Kamma: advantageous or disadvantageous action; Sanskrit karma, Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings. These kammical intentions kammacetanā become manifest as advantageous or disadvantageous actions by body kāya-kamma speech vacī-kamma and mind mano-kamma Thus the Buddhist term 'kamma' by no means signifies the result of actions, and quite certainly not the fate of man, or perhaps even of whole nations the so-called wholesale or mass-kamma, misconceptions which, through the influence of theosophy, have become widely spread in the West."

It states that kamma means "action" but that it is correctly understood as the two kinds of intentions called "kusala-cetana" and akusala-cetana"; the first, "kusala-cetana" means "advantageous intention" and the second, "akusala-cetana" means "disadvantageous intention".....so the definition is saying that while "kamma" literally means "action" it is properly understood to mean two types of intention i.e. advantageous intention (kusala-cetana) and disadvantageous intention (akusala-cetana) and also it includes certain mental properties which simultaneously arise.

It then goes on to state that these kamma intentions (kammacetana) can be made manifest in three ways, body, speech, and mind but this is simply three ways the intention kamma is made manifest in action and does not negate the concept of kamma being propery understood as intention.

It is quite clear from the wording that indeed Nyanatiloka's dictionary asserts that the proper understanding of the Pali word "kamma" as used by the Buddha is intention as witnessed by the core definition "Pāli: kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the advantageous and disadvantageous intentions kusala and akusala-cetanā and their concomitant mental properties, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings." which clearly states this and by the fact that in elaborating this core definition nothing is said to negate the concept that kamma is properly to be understood as intention.

A similar step by step analysis of the Sutta I mentioned could also be done I'm sure but I don't have the time now...maybe later....but maybe the discussion would best be moved out of the dueling scriptures and interpretations of scriptures mode and into another mode....an impractical example: I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

Chownah

[OxfordWill]

RedQualia- yes, as you rightly say, it does. And Dennett does a fine job of demystifying the demarkations of the various determinist groups. I guess we shouldnt derail this thread with too much analytics though. Love the username.

[sabaijai]

A similar step by step analysis of the Sutta I mentioned could also be done I'm sure but I don't have the time now...maybe later....but maybe the discussion would best be moved out of the dueling scriptures and interpretations of scriptures mode and into another mode....an impractical example: I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

Chownah

By your logic the reverse would have to be true. If I intend to kill the hiker and throw the rock, but it misses my target entirely, is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?

[RedQualia]

I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

Chownah

Kamma must be caused, mustn't it?

"Among all the jewels of Buddhist philosophy its theory of Causation is the chief jewel," says Kamalasila. It is marked by the name of Dependent Origination or, more precisely, "Combined Dependent Origination." This term means that every point-instant of reality arises in dependence upon some combination of point-instants to which it necessarily succeeds, it arises in functional dependence upon "a totality of causes and conditions" which are its immediate anticedents. [. . .] Reality, as ultimate reality, reduces to point instants of efficiency, and these point-instants arise in functional dependence upon other point-instants, which are their causes. They arise, or exist, only so far as they are efficient, that is to say, so far as they themselves are causes. Whatsoever exists is a cause, cause and existence are synonyms. [from "Buddhist Logic Vol 1," by Stcherbatsky]

Preamble for the thought that if you are aware that your actions resulted in the death of the hiker, that awareness of your action can represent a causative force in your mind. If you are forever unaware that your action caused his death, then there is nothing for it to contribute to your kamma, since kamma is not imposed by some external force (god doesn't stick you with it).

Yes? No?

[fabianfred]

the act of killing requires five conditions to accrue the full karmic resposibility...

1. a living being

2. knowing the being is alive

3. intending to kill

4. acting upon ones intention to kill

5. the being dying because of your intention

if it doesn't die... you created bad karma by wanting or trying to kill it... but not the full amount as you would if you had succeeded

if it dies from another cause before you are able to kill it.... same as above

if it was unintentional that you killed... maybe a small penalty for lack of mindfulness..... just an accident.... it was the beings karma to die then

Edited June 24, 2007 by fabianfred

[RedQualia]

OK... Back to the original question.

If I'm not mistaken, by definition, Karma is "path-independent". This means all decisions and actions, no matter how different, lead to the same consequence as Karma pre-dictates.

So how can Free Will exist if all our choices deliver us to the same destinations regardless? How can we blaze new trails or get new future results and improve the lot if all we can do is execute the Karmic system? Are we merely droids?

CAUSALITY AND FREE WILL.

In connection with the theory of Causation the Buddhist attitude relating the great question of Liberty and Necessity must be breefly indicated. According to a tradition which we have no reason to disbelieve, the Special Theory of Causation [the twelve membered pratitya-samutpada] has been established by Buddha himself in defense of Free Will and against a theory of wholesale Determinism. This problem, which has always perplexed almost all of the human race, was also vehemently discussed at the time of Buddha. He had singled out for special animadversion the doctrine of one of his contemporaries, Gosala Maskariputra, who preached an extreme determinism and denied absolutely all free will and all moral responsibility. According to him all things are inalterably fixed and nothing can be changed. Everything depends on fate, environment and nature. He denied all moral duty [. . .]. Buddha stigmatized him as the "bad man" who like a fisherman was catching men only to destroy them. He rejected his philosophy as the most pernicious system. "There is free action, he declared, there is retribution," "I maintain the doctrine of free actions."

But on the other hand we are confronted by the statement that nothing arises without a cause, everything is "dependently originating." Vasubandhu, the second Buddha, categorically denies free will. "Actions, says he, are either of the body, or of speech or of the mind. The two first classes, those of the body and of speech, wholly depend upon the mind, and the mind wholly depends upon unexorable causes and conditions." We are thus at once landed in a full contradiction.

As against determinism the Buddhists maintain free will and responsibility. As against liberty they maintain the strictest necessity of causal laws. Buddha is represented in tradition as maintaining the paradoxical thesis that there is Liberty, because there is Necessity, viz, necessity of retribution which reposes on Causality.

The solution of the puzzle seems to lie in a difference of the conception of Liberty. For the Buddhist empirical existence is a state of Bondage comparable to a prison. Life by its own principle of kinetic reality is constantly moving towards an issue [nihsarana == moksa] in Final Deliverance. It is this movement which the Buddhist imagines as subject to strict causal laws. Movement or life is for him a process characterized in all its details by the strictest necessity, but it is a necessary movement towards a necessary final aim. Causality does not differ here from finality. For Gosala necessity evidently means Deliverance. For the Buddhist, on the contrary, necessity is a constant change, a running necessity, steering unavoidably to a definite aim. Thus interpreted the words of Vasubandhu are not in conflict with the declaration ascribed to Buddha.

But the Buddhists were always obliged to defend themselves against the stricture that there is in their outlook no place neither for Bondage nor for Deliverance, since the Ego, the Agent who could be bound up and then delivered does not exist at all. This the Buddhist concedes, but he maintains that the passing stream of events is the only Agent which is required. "There is (free) action, there is retribution, says Buddha, but I see no Agent which passes out of one set of momentary elements into another one, except the Consecution of these elements. This Consecution has it, that being given such and such points, such other ones will necessarily appear."

There is indeed not a single moment in the mental stream constituting the run of the individual's volitions which would appear at haphazard [*SEE FOOTNOTE ONE BELOW] without being strictly conditioned, i.e., "dependently originating." But volition which precedes every bodily action can be either strong or feeble. If it is feeble the action is quasi-automatical. It then will have no consequence, it will entail neither reward nor punishment. Such are our usual animal functions or our usual occupations. But if the volition is strong, the following actions will have an outspoken moral character, it will be either a virtuous deed or a crime. Such actions will be necessarily followed by retribution, either by reward or punishment. The law according to which a moral, resp. immoral, deed must necesarily have its fruition, is the law of karma.

If something happens as a consequence of former deeds, it is not karma, that is to say, it will have no further consequence, it is quasi-automatical. In order to have a consequence the action must be free, i.e, it must be produced by a strong effort of the will. [** SEE FOOTNOTE TWO BELOW]

The law of karma has been revealed by Buddha. It cannot be proved experimentally. It is transcendental. But when critically examined it will be found to conain no contrdiction and therefore it can be believed even by critical minds. The so called Free Will is nothing, but a Strong Will and the law of karma, far from being in conflict with causality, is only a special case of that causality.

Thus it is that the Buddhist Free Will is a freedom inside the limits of necessity. It is a freedom to move without transgressing the boundaries of causation, a freedom inside the Prison of Dependent Origination. However this prison has an issue. Another postulate of Buddhism, besides the law of karma, seems to be the firm conviction that that the sum-total of good deeds prevails over the sum-total of bad deeds. The evolution of the world process is an evolution of moral progress. When all good deeds will have been brought their fruitition, Final Deliverance will be attained in Nirvana. Causation is then extinct and the Absolute is reached. Nagarjuna says -- "having regard to causes and conditions (to which all phenomena are subjected, we call this world) phenomenal. This same world, when causes and conditions are disregarded, (the world sub specie aeternitatis) is called the Absolute."

FOOTNOTE ONE: In Sanhkya karma is explained materialistically, as consisting in a special collocation of minutest infra-atomic particles or material forces making the action either good or bad. In Hinayana the will (cetana) is a mental (citta-samprayukta) element (dharma) or force (samskara) representing a stream of momentaty flashes, every moment of which is strictly conditioned by the sum total (samagri) of preceding moments. Apparent freedom consists in our ignorance of all the conditions of a given action. Garbe things that the Sankhya doctrine constains a contradiction, but it probably must be explained just as the Buddhist one. Determinism means that it is impossible to escape retribution.

FOOTNOTE TWO: Macrocosmically regarded, since we cannot know all causes and conditions of a given action, it seems as though it were free, but every single moment of the will (cetana), microcosmically regarded, cannot but appear in strict conformity to the totality of all preceding moments. Apparent freedom consists in our ignorance of all the minutest influences.

From pages 131-134, chapter II, "Causation," part 7, "Causality and Free Will,"" of "Buddhist Logic," Volume 1, by Th. Stcherbatsky, published by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2004.

NOTE: The author is Russian, writing in English, and was published in India. The language and punctutation can therefore sometimes be a bit odd (the word "breefly" is actually written that way in the original). One (inconsequential) sentence of the original was omitted above, since it contains a serious mistake in meaning that would have caused (!) everyone who reads this here to roll in uncontrollable laughter.

Footnotes listed here are incomplete. My apologies for not even trying to include Pali punctuation (strokes over this letter or that, and such).

A final thought: Much of the work, "Buddhist Logic," consists of the presentation of a wide variety of Buddhists and non-Buddhists who tend to disagree with one another quite a bit. Not unlike this forum...

[chownah]

A similar step by step analysis of the Sutta I mentioned could also be done I'm sure but I don't have the time now...maybe later....but maybe the discussion would best be moved out of the dueling scriptures and interpretations of scriptures mode and into another mode....an impractical example: I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

Chownah

By your logic the reverse would have to be true. If I intend to kill the hiker and throw the rock, but it misses my target entirely, is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?

As Nyanatiloka's Dictionary says, "kamma intentions (kammacetana) can be made manifest in three ways, body, speech, and mind ......." Someone who attempts to kill the hiker but fails has created kamma through mind and probably to some extent through body as well since bodily actions were carried out under the influence of an intention to kill. Someone who declares that they will kill the hiker has created kamma through speech. Someone who thinks that they want to kill the hiker but says and does nothing has still created kamma through mind. Note that since intention is an act of the mind that simply having intention automatically creates kamma through mind. It is my view that the kamma created will not be the same in all of these situation so the answer to your specifice question, "is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?" is that no, it would not be the same.

Chownah

Edited June 25, 2007 by chownah

[fabianfred]

." Vasubandhu, the second Buddha,

who is this?

not on this list...

http://www.mahindarama.com/amata-foundatio...-28-Buddhas.doc

[chownah]

Preamble for the thought that if you are aware that your actions resulted in the death of the hiker, that awareness of your action can represent a causative force in your mind. If you are forever unaware that your action caused his death, then there is nothing for it to contribute to your kamma, since kamma is not imposed by some external force (god doesn't stick you with it).

Yes? No?

My view is that if there was no intent to kill (you don't say in your example if there was intent) then the act which accidentally caused the death would not create kamma.....and if there was intent to kill then some kamma would be created regardless as to whether the act was successfully committed and regardless of whether the preson knew if their act was successful (tried to kill but don't know if succeeded). Knowing that you killed someone (accidentally or intentionally) can be the cause of further intentions (beyond the intention (or lack) to kill) which could give rise to further kamma. Also, it is my view that for most people seeing a corpse in any situation will cause the precipitation of the fruits of past kamma....but this is only my view and I have never seen any scriptural reference which comments on this.

By the way...for those who get confused about what is kamma and what is the fruit of the kamma, an analogy is that creating kamma is like setting a trap while the fruit of the kamma is like getting caught in your own trap.....although do remember that the fruits of kamma can be pleasant too and not always negative like in my analogy.

Chownah