Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

anantariya kamma

Expand Messages
  • Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy
    Hi All, I have joined this group recently; let me introduce myself . I am Siddhartha Annapureddy, and I have been reading about Buddhism since last
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,
      I have joined this group recently; let me introduce myself .

      I am Siddhartha Annapureddy, and I have been reading about Buddhism since
      last November/December. I have read most of the dIgha nikAya, and some parts
      of the majjhima nikAya, and have been listening to the lectures by bhikkhu
      bOdhi on the majjhima nikAya.

      I have a question on the anantariya kammas (that arose in a discussion with
      some of my friends). In the case of matricide/parricide (or any of the other
      3 kammas),

      -- What is the exact reason for a person, who commits such an act, being
      unable to become an arahant? aN^gulImAla became an arahant even though he
      killed 999 people. So, why is it that parents are so special? Is it because
      they are the reason the satta (sentient being) has a body to practise the
      spiritual path?

      -- Or, is it because a person killing a parent would be committing a pApa
      against someone who has done so much for him. The usual reference is about
      the Buddha teaching how great is the good that parents do unto a child. If
      this is the case, then what about the case of foster parents who raise an
      abandoned child? If such a child kills a foster parent, would the child's
      pApa prevent him from becoming an arahant?

      -- Or, is it because a person who kills a parent is beset by uddhachCha
      (remorse), and this prevents him from becoming an arahant? This does not
      seem right (IMHO), because a person could realize the futility of remorse,
      and attain samAdhi by exerting effort.

      -- Also, it seems that the commentary mentions that if a person kills A
      (with full intention), and A turns out to be his parent (like in the case of
      Oedipus), he would still incur the pApa of an anantariya kamma? I read this
      a while ago on a website, but could not trace it now. Could one of you let
      me know if this is the position of the commentary.

      -- An ethical situation we were discussing was, why cannot a son become an
      arahant if he kills his father (say) who happens to be a mass murderer (an
      imaginary situation would be Hitler and his son)?

      Thanks so much.

      A.Siddhartha.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Siddharta, we learn that kamma, which is wholesome or unwholesome volition, a cetasika, produces result, vipaaka accordingly. Nobody can prevent kamma
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 11, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Siddharta,
        we learn that kamma, which is wholesome or unwholesome volition, a
        cetasika, produces result, vipaaka accordingly. Nobody can prevent
        kamma from doing this, kamma is very just.
        Killing a parent is a very grave kamma, it brings an immediate result
        in the next life by way of rebirth in Hell. As you say, parents did a
        lot, they introduced their child to the world.
        Such a person could not become an arahat, since the arahat has no
        more rebirth.
        Now, people may think and speculate about matters such as Oedipus, or
        the father being a murderer, but this is not helpful. Many doubts can
        arise. Let us consider kamma and vipaaka in the ultimate sense. In
        the highest sense no being commits kamma, no being is reborn. There
        are condiitons for the arising of grave akusala kamma, a cetasika. It
        produces the rebirth-consciousness arising in a Hell plane. This is a
        matter of cause and result.
        Nina.
        Op 11-jul-2007, om 0:00 heeft Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy het
        volgende geschreven:

        > why cannot a son become an
        > arahant if he kills his father (say) who happens to be a mass
        > murderer (an
        > imaginary situation would be Hitler and his son)?



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gunnar Gällmo
        ... I have learnt that, according to the Buddhist kamma theory unlike some others, only intentional actions are kamma; so parricide must mean killing ones
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 11, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> skrev:

          > Now, people may think and speculate about matters
          > such as Oedipus, or
          > the father being a murderer, but this is not
          > helpful.

          I have learnt that, according to the Buddhist kamma
          theory unlike some others, only intentional actions
          are kamma; so parricide must mean killing ones father
          knowing him to be ones father. In the case of Oedipus,
          the action was an intentional killing but not an
          intentional parricide. According to ancient Greek
          ethics, that made no difference; but in their
          religion, the problem wasn't kamma but the wrath of
          the gods.

          In the case of a murdered father being himself a
          murderar, we enter the problem whether evil can be
          fought by evil means; in which case I think the
          traditional Buddhist answer is a very clear "no".

          Most governments disagree, though; even such
          governments who claim to support Buddhism.

          But governments, irrespective of official ideology,
          tend to be primarily disciples of Machiavelli.

          Gunnar







          _________________________________________________________
          Flyger tiden iväg? Fånga dagen med Yahoo! Mails inbyggda
          kalender. Dessutom 250 MB gratis, virusscanning och antispam. Få den på: http://se.mail.yahoo.com
        • Stephen Hodge
          ... Sorry to be pedantic, but patricide is the killing of one s father. Parricide is the killing of either of one s parents or other close relatives. Hence
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Gunnar Gällmo wrote:

            > so parricide must mean killing ones father ...

            Sorry to be pedantic, but patricide is the killing of one's father.
            Parricide is the killing of either of one's parents or other close
            relatives. Hence all patricides are parricides, but not all parricides are
            patricides.

            Best wishes,
            Stephen Hodge
          • Gunnar Gällmo
            ... All right; so read parent instead of father . An interesting question might be whether, from the standpoint of Buddhist ethics, the killing of a foster
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Stephen Hodge <s.hodge@...>
              skrev:

              > Gunnar Gällmo wrote:
              >
              > > so parricide must mean killing ones father ...
              >
              > Sorry to be pedantic, but patricide is the killing
              > of one's father.
              > Parricide is the killing of either of one's parents
              > or other close
              > relatives. Hence all patricides are parricides, but
              > not all parricides are
              > patricides.

              All right; so read "parent" instead of "father".

              An interesting question might be whether, from the
              standpoint of Buddhist ethics, the killing of a foster
              parent who did take care of you is parricide, and
              whether the killing of a biological father who didn't
              is.

              And, in the later case, if there is a difference
              between killing a parent knowing him or her to be a
              parent, and doing so without knowing it. (Leaving
              Oedipus aside - who is probably a fictive person
              anyway - we have in the modern world the case of
              artificial insemination where sometimes the biological
              father and his offspring never know each other's
              identity. Already earlier than that, there were cases
              where a promiscuous woman actually didn't know who was
              the father of her child, and so couldn't tell the
              child; or knew, but didn't tell anyway, or lied about
              it.)

              If kamma, according to the Buddhist interpretation of
              the concept, works mainly psychologically (the kamma
              being the intention behind the action rather than the
              action itself), then I think there is, and that
              murdering a parent without knowing him or her to be
              one's parent must work as "only" a murder, which is
              certainly more than bad enough.

              Gunnar







              _________________________________________________________
              Flyger tiden iväg? Fånga dagen med Yahoo! Mails inbyggda
              kalender. Dessutom 250 MB gratis, virusscanning och antispam. Få den på: http://se.mail.yahoo.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.