Making Merit

[Jawnie]

So true, this is not at all about grammar. Merit is the the store of positive attributes on generates through actions performed with the pure intention of either venerating the Buddhas, their teachings, their followers or with the intention of benefiting others. I'm really not a scholar of the sutras or tantras but much of Buddhist practice is explicitly intended for or untaken for the purpose of generating merit. Again, merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results. If there is a 'place' where merit 'resides' it is in the consciousness of each individual.

Thai/Theravada Buddhism has a series of actions one performs to make merit: offer flowers, food, fruit, candles (light), free animals, give alms, robes, books, donations, etc., These are found in Mahayana Buddhism, also. But in Mahayana and Vajrayana, there is a wide variety of meditations, visualizations, and ceremonies, both personal and for groups, performed for the purpose of generating merit - positive causes and results. In those other schools, Mahayana and Vajrayana, however, the merit generating is not kept for one's self, but rather is dedicated or given away to all other sentinent beings with the wish that all other beings attain enlightenment.

Merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results within one's own consciousness which, like karma, will manifest later when conditions are right. 'Manifesting later' can mean that, because of possessing merit, one might meet with fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends.

One's present-day circumstances, whatever they may be, may be seen as being the result of possessing a lot, or a little, merit. Merit and making merit might also be thought of as a "habit of goodness" or developing a habit of goodness.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

So true, this is not at all about grammar. Merit is the the store of positive attributes on generates through actions performed with the pure intention of either venerating the Buddhas, their teachings, their followers or with the intention of benefiting others. I'm really not a scholar of the sutras or tantras but much of Buddhist practice is explicitly intended for or untaken for the purpose of generating merit. Again, merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results. If there is a 'place' where merit 'resides' it is in the consciousness of each individual.

Thai/Theravada Buddhism has a series of actions one performs to make merit: offer flowers, food, fruit, candles (light), free animals, give alms, robes, books, donations, etc., These are found in Mahayana Buddhism, also. But in Mahayana and Vajrayana, there is a wide variety of meditations, visualizations, and ceremonies, both personal and for groups, performed for the purpose of generating merit - positive causes and results. In those other schools, Mahayana and Vajrayana, however, the merit generating is not kept for one's self, but rather is dedicated or given away to all other sentinent beings with the wish that all other beings attain enlightenment.

Merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results within one's own consciousness which, like karma, will manifest later when conditions are right. 'Manifesting later' can mean that, because of possessing merit, one might meet with fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends.

One's present-day circumstances, whatever they may be, may be seen as being the result of possessing a lot, or a little, merit. Merit and making merit might also be thought of as a "habit of goodness" or developing a habit of goodness.

Doesn't your explanation of merit as a storehouse which manifests later in fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends is a belief involve metaphysics and the notion of re birth to future lives, rather than being a moment to moment event?

Why can't merit making involve true compassion and the reduction of suffering of others?

Why does it always appear to do with "what's in it for me" (my advancement)?

Why can't merit making be grounded in common sense rather than involve some kind of cosmic ledger?

Some of the apparently accepted methods of merit making seem to miss the point and involve a lack of awareness at any level.

For example the one your indicate involving "freeing of animals".

I think the practice is that someone cages birds and touts for donations in order to free them.

On initial reflection my donation will provide good merit for my storehouse as the bird will be freed.

On viewing this with a level of awareness, I conclude that rewarding those who cruelly cage these birds will encourage this practice and lead to greater suffering from generation to generation.

My simple donation in search of merit is actually generating widespread cruelty.

Perhaps even adding negative merit to my storehouse.

Edited February 2, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Why can't merit making involve true compassion and the reduction of suffering of others?

Why does it always appear to do with "what's in it for me" (my advancement)?

Why can't merit making be grounded in common sense rather than involve some kind of cosmic ledger?

Good rhetorical questions, Rocky.

Having taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, it's to be hoped that one would act in rightful ways without thinking of the karmic benefit to oneself, however one understands karma. But it's not easy to take leave of the ego, and this being so it's still better that one behaves rightly even if there's some awareness of the self-benefit in doing so.

If i accompany any good intention with the thought "If I do this then I'll accumulate merit ... but that's not the right spirit, that's ego-directed, so I might as well not do it", then I am unproductively focussed on my own motives rather than the possible benefits of the action to whoever or whatever. In the old Catholic confession manuals this would be known as scrupulousness, I think ("our conscience is overly exacting and overly critical of ourselves and we see sins where there are no sins, or mortal sins where there are only venial sins, and this leads to an inner torment of feeling guilty when there is no good reason" http://www.catholics...rupulosity.html).

It's better then to study the Buddhadharma and do the best one can regardless of whatever conscious or subconscious motives you think you might have (can we easily discern our 'true' motives?).

The idea that merit is accumulated and stored fits the Yogacara proposition that good and bad "seeds" are sown in our "store consciousness" (alaya vijnana). These "seeds" in turn impact on our future actions for better or worse and, at the end of our lives, influence and are carried forward into our next birth. Pure speculation, perhaps, but if one believes in karma, the Yogacara theory provides a coherent and persuasive way of thinking about these things.

Walpola Rahula claimed that the alaya vijnana notion is present in the Pali canon, too, but I've only ever read or heard it in Mahayana settings.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[sabaijai]

I'm not sure there is much merit (pun intended) in debating the nuances of an english translation of a Thai phrase.

I believe the pali term is puññābhisanda which is translated as accumulation of merit rather than making of merit.

If that is a good translation then I think the emphasis is less on making something happen but more on storing or collecting it I guess.

Puññābhisanda can also be translated as 'outflow of merit,' etc.

http://dsal.uchicago...c.0:1:1936.pali

You might say that de-emphasises personal accumulation and focuses on the results ot merit outside one's self.

But in actual citations in Pali texts, puññā (merit) is always used to mean the results of good actions that accrue to one's self. Puññā is the yield of kusala kamma (wholesome or skilful action)..

That doesn't mean that the intention behind kusala kamma is to create puññā. In fact if that is the intention, then no puññā results.

A lot of people, both Thais and non-Thais, confuse kusala kamma with puññā. Kusala kamma is the deed; puññā is the resulting accumulation. It's similar to the incorrect use of kamma to mean 'result' or 'effect' when in fact it means action.

Kamma is the cause, vipaka the effect. The accumulation of puññā at some point comes back to the do-er as kusala vipaka (wholesome effect from wholesome action).

[Xangsamhua]

Kamma is the cause, vipaka the effect. The accumulation of puññā at some point comes back to the do-er as kusala vipaka (wholesome effect from wholesome action).

Thanks for this, Sabaijai. I didn't know that.

Although I knew that Kamma means action, I always think of it as result.

However, assuming that there's no time delay between kamma and vipaka, that an intention or action carries with it its effects from the moment the intention has arisen, then it may be artificial to distinguish between an action and its (kammic) effects.

It would still be valid to speak of the kammic effects of an action if the action itself has any moral value and implies a result. (I'm not speaking of intentions and actions that have no moral or karmic value - everyday maintenance actions, for example - taking a shower, going to bed, etc.) But I'm not sure a kammic effect can be separated from the action that produces the effect.

Kamma produces vipaka, but not in the way a cow produces milk or Van Gogh produced "The Sunflowers". Any cow has the potential to produce milk and any painter has the potential to produce a work of art, but there may be barren cows and failed painters. In the karmic scheme of things, however, a morally relevant action necessarily produces a karmic result.

From the moment of arising, an intention or action (kamma) produces vipaka. There are not two events or processes, kamma + vipaka, nor are there two movements or phases within the one process. They are simultaneous, two aspects of the one event. And there is no probability calculus. We can't say "this (morally significant) action has a 70% - 75% probability of producing vipaka. It cannot not generate a vipaka-effect. One (kamma), therefore, implies the other (vipaka) from the moment of its formation in the mind as an intention. They are in performative unity.

The Abhidhamma is a masterpiece of analysis and fine discrimination - a wonderful guide to helping clear the mind and erase misconceptions - but I wonder if the dualities that result as constructs in the student's mind mask the essential unity of the psychological phenomena taking place.

[Jawnie]

So true, this is not at all about grammar. Merit is the the store of positive attributes on generates through actions performed with the pure intention of either venerating the Buddhas, their teachings, their followers or with the intention of benefiting others. I'm really not a scholar of the sutras or tantras but much of Buddhist practice is explicitly intended for or untaken for the purpose of generating merit. Again, merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results. If there is a 'place' where merit 'resides' it is in the consciousness of each individual.

Thai/Theravada Buddhism has a series of actions one performs to make merit: offer flowers, food, fruit, candles (light), free animals, give alms, robes, books, donations, etc., These are found in Mahayana Buddhism, also. But in Mahayana and Vajrayana, there is a wide variety of meditations, visualizations, and ceremonies, both personal and for groups, performed for the purpose of generating merit - positive causes and results. In those other schools, Mahayana and Vajrayana, however, the merit generating is not kept for one's self, but rather is dedicated or given away to all other sentinent beings with the wish that all other beings attain enlightenment.

Merit is a storehouse of positive causes and results within one's own consciousness which, like karma, will manifest later when conditions are right. 'Manifesting later' can mean that, because of possessing merit, one might meet with fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends.

One's present-day circumstances, whatever they may be, may be seen as being the result of possessing a lot, or a little, merit. Merit and making merit might also be thought of as a "habit of goodness" or developing a habit of goodness.

Doesn't your explanation of merit as a storehouse which manifests later in fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends is a belief involve metaphysics and the notion of re birth to future lives, rather than being a moment to moment event?

Why can't merit making involve true compassion and the reduction of suffering of others?

Why does it always appear to do with "what's in it for me" (my advancement)?

Why can't merit making be grounded in common sense rather than involve some kind of cosmic ledger?

Some of the apparently accepted methods of merit making seem to miss the point and involve a lack of awareness at any level.

For example the one your indicate involving "freeing of animals".

I think the practice is that someone cages birds and touts for donations in order to free them.

On initial reflection my donation will provide good merit for my storehouse as the bird will be freed.

On viewing this with a level of awareness, I conclude that rewarding those who cruelly cage these birds will encourage this practice and lead to greater suffering from generation to generation.

My simple donation in search of merit is actually generating widespread cruelty.

Perhaps even adding negative merit to my storehouse.

Well, as I mentioned, in the Mahayana and Vajrayana things I've studied and been involved with, the merit is always dedicated to all other beings with the wish that they attain unsurpassed enlightenment. This is one of the last prayers in the Tibetan prayer book I use everyday.

I've always been curious to know what Thais and Thai Buddhists pray or intend to achieve in their merit-making.

With regard to freeing the animals, I, too, don't use or condone using the animals for sale for release. There's really a lot wrong with that practice, the main thing being that but for the vendor capturing the birds for sale in front of wats, the animals would be free. I became aware of that rather quickly when I arrive in Thailand. There's bound to be some negative karma in it for the vendors and a small amount of negative karma for those who purchase the birds and fish knowing the vendor is doing it solely for money. Again, but for the fact that the vendor has placed the animals in captivity, the animals would be free. I advocate no one purchase the birds for sale at wats.

When I perform animal release, I go to a market where fish are being slaughtered for shoppers; that's the way to free animals. Life release was, and still is, a prominent practice in Tibet. I have friends in Kham who practice animal releases for several days at a time: "ransoming the animals" is what they sometimes call it. One lama I know in the US is from eastern Tibet, he performs a monthly release into the Pacific Ocean. He said they sometimes did if for 2-3 months in Tibet. It is a highly-recommended practice for making merit.

[sabaijai]

From the moment of arising, an intention or action (kamma) produces vipaka. There are not two events or processes, kamma + vipaka, nor are there two movements or phases within the one process. They are simultaneous, two aspects of the one event.

Not according to PA Payutto, author of Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teachings (where vipaka is translated as 'fruition') or Phra Bhasakorn Bhavilai, author of the easier-to-read Karma for Today's Traveler, which even contains a chart showing demonstrating the potential time gaps between kamma and vipaka.

Much time can elapse between kamma and vipaka, eons even.

One simple explanation from Ven Mahasi Sayadaw:

Karma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction.

Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As Karma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, - the fruit – is good or bad. As Karma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the Karma seed. Anisamsa are the concomitant advantages – material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they are known as Adinaya, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in his life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

The Samyutta Nikaya states:

"According to the seed that’s sown,

So is the fruit you reap there from,

Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste

The fruit thereof."

Karma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm#2

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Karma-Todays-Traveler-Bhasakorn-Bhavilai/dp/9746568469

[sabaijai]

From the moment of arising, an intention or action (kamma) produces vipaka. There are not two events or processes, kamma + vipaka, nor are there two movements or phases within the one process. They are simultaneous, two aspects of the one event.

Not according to PA Payutto, author of Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teachings (where vipaka is translated as 'fruition') or Phra Bhasakorn Bhavilai, author of the easier-to-read Karma for Today's Traveler, which even contains a chart illustrating the potential time gaps between kamma and vipaka.

Much time can elapse between kamma and vipaka, eons even.

One simple explanation from Ven Mahasi Sayadaw:

Karma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction.

Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As Karma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, - the fruit – is good or bad. As Karma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the Karma seed. Anisamsa are the concomitant advantages – material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they are known as Adinaya, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in his life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

The Samyutta Nikaya states:

"According to the seed that’s sown,

So is the fruit you reap there from,

Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste

The fruit thereof."

Karma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

http://www.buddhanet...ing/karma.htm#2

http://www.buddhanet...cmdsg/kamma.htm

http://www.amazon.co...i/dp/9746568469

[sabaijai]

Doesn't your explanation of merit as a storehouse which manifests later in fortune rebirths with myriad fortunate circumstances including meeting spiritual teachers and friends is a belief involve metaphysics and the notion of re birth to future lives, rather than being a moment to moment event?

Why can't merit making involve true compassion and the reduction of suffering of others?

Why does it always appear to do with "what's in it for me" (my advancement)?

Why can't merit making be grounded in common sense rather than involve some kind of cosmic ledger?

Some of the apparently accepted methods of merit making seem to miss the point and involve a lack of awareness at any level.

You are confusing kusala kamma (wholesome action) with merit. They are separate concepts. Merit is the result of kusala kamma. If there is no kusala kamma, there is no punna.

Thai folk beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding, you can't 'make' punna directly, and as I tired to explain earlier, if your intentions aren't kusala then no merit is achieved.

For a practising Buddhist, there is no need to preoccupy one's self with punna, only to focus on kusala citta (wholesome mind-moments) and kusala kamma (wholesome action). Punna is merely an expression describing the accumulation of kusala vipaka that results from cumulative kusala kamma.

It's quite simple. Anyone preoccupied with 'making' punna will reap vipaka according to the kamma committed.

[Xangsamhua]

From the moment of arising, an intention or action (kamma) produces vipaka. There are not two events or processes, kamma + vipaka, nor are there two movements or phases within the one process. They are simultaneous, two aspects of the one event.

Not according to PA Payutto, author of Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teachings (where vipaka is translated as 'fruition') or Phra Bhasakorn Bhavilai, author of the easier-to-read Karma for Today's Traveler, which even contains a chart showing demonstrating the potential time gaps between kamma and vipaka.

Much time can elapse between kamma and vipaka, eons even.

One simple explanation from Ven Mahasi Sayadaw:

Karma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction.

Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As Karma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, - the fruit – is good or bad. As Karma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the Karma seed. Anisamsa are the concomitant advantages – material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they are known as Adinaya, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in his life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

The Samyutta Nikaya states:

"According to the seed that’s sown,

So is the fruit you reap there from,

Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste

The fruit thereof."

Karma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

http://www.buddhanet...ing/karma.htm#2

http://www.buddhanet...cmdsg/kamma.htm

http://www.amazon.co...i/dp/9746568469

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.

[Xangsamhua]

Sorry, in my post I confused PA Payutto and Ven Mahasi Sayadaw. It was the latter who used the "shadow" analogy.

Perhaps I'm impatient - skimming too fast - but it looks like Ven. Mahasi is talking about the broader effects of kammic action, whereas I'm thinking abut the moral effects only.

Of course if I feed my child a poor diet and let him watch a lot of TV it will take some time before the full effects of this are worked through on him and perhaps his own children.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about forming the intention to let the kid eat junk and watch junk because I'm too lazy to act responsibly.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think it's important to realise that kamma-vipakkha is only one aspect of conditionality http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html#ida

Conditionality is working all the time in that everything arisdes and passes away according to causes and conditions, which may be what Xangsamhua is thinking of.

It appears to me that kamma-vipakkha is a subset of that process, or a model for explaining that processes on a personal level, and for explaining the importance of the motivation for the action leading to outcomes on a personal level.

[Mirth]

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.

[Jawnie]

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.

[Mirth]

Ah okie, thank you for the clarification.

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

[rockyysdt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 February 10, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

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]

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 February 10, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

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 February 11, 2012 by Jawnie

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 February 13, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

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.