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

Re: [Pali] Re: Interested in your Pali Group

Expand Messages
  • Piya Tan
    Dear Group, Words are what we make of it, although how we are influence by dominant forces do colour our response. There is also a tendency amongst world
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Group,

      Words are what we make of it, although how we are influence by dominant
      forces do colour our response.
      There is also a tendency amongst world religions to adopt, adapt and even
      absorb attractive elements of other religions.

      In our times, there is a trend for Catholics (esp priests) to learn Buddhist
      meditation in an effort to regain their lost contemplative tradition. This
      is interesting because we are actually helping them to regain lost
      spirituality.

      Sukhi

      Piya


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ong Yong Peng" <ypong001@...>
      To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:04 PM
      Subject: [Pali] Re: Interested in your Pali Group


      > Dear Piya, Danya and friends,
      >
      > I am afraid that the word grace implies (in a theistic sense) that we
      > are in the mercy of a supreme, almight, all-powerful being. This
      > concept does not exist in Buddhism. The concept of grace and seeking
      > it, however, exists in all other religions that believe in one, two
      > or many divine beings.
      >
      > Bringing up the word grace brings up the concept of sin too. I would
      > say both are irrelevant in the Buddhist context. Angulimala was a man
      > of good nature and was the most outstanding student of his teacher
      > before turning into a bandit. Circumstances brought him into a life
      > of wickedness, the compassion of Buddha brought him back to the right
      > path and Buddha's wisdom subdued his unfounded and ignorant excuses
      > for wrong-doing.
      >
      > metta,
      > Yong Peng
      >
      > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Piya Tan wrote:
      > > It helps if you have a working definition of "grace".
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > Hi! My name is Danya Furda and I live in Columbus, Ohio.
      > Currently I am working on my Ph.D. thesis (through McMaster
      > University, Hamilton, Canada) and hope to be finished by the end of
      > next year. My thesis is about Kamma and Grace in the story of
      > Angulimala. One of the main parts of my project has been to
      > translate all but one version of the story of Angulimala from the
      > Chinese Buddhist canon. Now I am working on my chapter regarding
      > kamma and grace within the Pali version (MN 86) and my seven Chinese
      > ones. I would really appreciate it if you could suggest articles or
      > books that you found particularly helpful in understanding how kamma
      > operates within Theravada Buddhism. Of course if any of you know
      > articles/books that might mention grace as a concept within Theravada
      > Buddhism, please pass that on as well. So far, I have only found
      > Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism by Peter Masefield to be useful in
      > this regard.
      >
      >
      >
      > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
      > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
      > Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
      > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
      web only.
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • nina van gorkom
      Dear Danya, Welcome to the list. I hope you find it useful for your studies. Yes, I was puzzled by the word grace. I have a try. See below. ... Danya wrote: I
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Danya,
        Welcome to the list. I hope you find it useful for your studies.
        Yes, I was puzzled by the word grace. I have a try. See below.
        op 04-09-2003 02:56 schreef Piya Tan op libris@...:
        > It helps if you have a working definition of "grace".
        Danya wrote:
        I would really appreciate it if you could suggest articles or books that
        you
        >> found particularly helpful in understanding how kamma operates within
        >> Theravada Buddhism.
        Nina: Wheel no 221-224, BPS Sri Lanka, Kamma and its Fruit, also containing
        articles by me. I believe it is on line now.
        It is very intricate how different conditions operate at different moments
        in the course of our lives. Akusala kamma committed aeons ago can still
        produce result now when the conditions are right. Each moment of
        consciousness, citta, arises and falls away, and is succeeded by the next
        one. That is why good and bad inclinations can be accumulated from life to
        life. Thus, not only different kammas are accumulated, also good and bad
        inclinations which can motivate good and bad deeds. Angulima had
        accumulated inclinations to violence but also, he must have listened to
        Dhamma in former lives, he must have accumulated right understanding. The
        Buddha knew his disposition and he knew that it was the right time for him
        to hear the Dhamma. He became a monk and later on he attained arahatship as
        you have read in the sutta (M, 86). At the attainment of arahatship the end
        of the cycle is reached. Kamma cannot produce as result any kind of rebirth.
        However, an arahat can, during his last life, still experience results of
        former kammas in the form of pleasant and unpleasant experiences through the
        senses. This is explained also in this sutta. A cloth of earth, sticks and
        gravel fell upon A"ngulimaala so that he had a broken head. The Buddha
        explained that he was experiencing the result of akusala kamma, which, had
        he not been an arahat, could have produced rebirth in Hell.
        I see the Buddha's great compassion in this sutta, but I would not use the
        word grace. Different kammas and different inclinations were the conditions
        for different effects. This sutta helps us to understand that events in life
        all have their appropriate conditions. This is actually Dhamma Nyaama, the
        fixed nature of Dhamma. I wrote (in Meanings of dhamma, no 7) about the
        Fixedness of Law (Dhamma) regarding all things, also quoting from Buddhist
        Dict by Ven. Nyanatiloka.
        <There is a fivefold natural order, that governs:
        1. temperature, season.
        2. plant life.
        3. kamma.
        4. functions of citta in the processes.
        5. certain events occurring in the lives of the Buddhas.
        As regards kamma: akusala kamma produces an undesirable result and kusala
        kamma produces a desirable result, and this is niyaama, a fixed order of
        dhammas. It cannot be altered.
        The ³Gradual Sayings² (I, 285) Ch XIV, §134, Appearance states:
        "Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathaagata,
        this causal law of nature (dhaatudhamma.t.thitataa), this orderly fixing of
        things (dhammaniyaamataa) prevails, namely, All phenomena are
        impermanent..."
        The same is said with regard to the nature of dukkha and anattaa.>
        Conditions take their course, no matter whether there is an appearance or
        non-appearance of a Tathaagata. When you use the word grace it suggests a
        person who bestows grace. This is in the context not according to reality.
        Not even a Buddha can alter the fixedness of kamma.
        Nina.
      • Danya Furda
        Thanks for your help and suggestions. For the purposes of my thesis, I am defining grace as a gift or favor given by a representative of ultimate reality
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for your help and suggestions. For the purposes of my thesis, I am
          defining grace as "a gift or favor given by a representative of ultimate
          reality without regard to the recipient's virtue and without which ultimate
          liberation would not be possible." Many religious traditions embrace a
          concept of grace in this sense. There does not need to be a god or God to
          have a concept of grace. Grace needs not to be a technical term monopolized
          by Christian theology. I am arguing here, however, that buddhas are special
          beings and possess abilities and qualities not possessed by human beings or
          even by devas.

          The concept of grace (as defined above) was brought to my attention while
          reading Peter Masefield's excellent book, Divine Revelation in Pali
          Buddhism. I guess my question in terms of grace is whether or not anyone
          else has come across other resources which explore the idea that a buddha is
          an essential element for Dharma to be transmitted to others.

          Thanks Nina for the info on kamma. It appears that kamma is operative
          regardless whereas grace can only occur when a buddha is present in the
          world to reveal the Dharma to those ready to hear it. Also, I am
          distinguishing between the concept of grace and that of compassion. For
          something to be "grace," rather than just simply "compassion," it must lead
          to assured ultimate liberation.

          Danya


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ong Yong Peng
          Dear Danya, Nina, Piya and friends, I am not able to provide any references, but kindly allow me to offer some opinions. The concept of grace is vague in
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Danya, Nina, Piya and friends,

            I am not able to provide any references, but kindly allow me to offer
            some opinions.

            The concept of grace is vague in Buddhism comparing to all other
            religions. Even in Christianity, grace is only given "in exchange"
            for faith. A buddha may be an essential element for Dharma to be
            transmitted to others. But a Buddha is not a Hindu avatar or a Jewish
            messiah. And it is possible for a person, under the right conditions,
            to attain nibbana on his own. This we call a paccekabuddha.

            I would not call the Buddha approaching Angulima a gift or favor,
            although I am not hesitant to use christian evangelistic words that
            Angulima was "ripe to pluck". :-)

            Your exploration of the concept of grace in Buddhist literature is an
            interesting and significant one. Dr Masefield's work has received
            high regards throughout buddhist circles. It is highly possible that
            elements of grace do exist in Buddhism, you may regard Buddha's Pure
            Land (in the Pure Land school of Mahayana Buddhism) as an example.
            However, because in the Asian buddhist traditions, people approach
            religion with a different mindset, hence we don't see many works
            discussing grace in Buddhism. I am sure your investigation will be an
            eye-opener for us, providing us another window to see the magnificent
            nature of the Buddha-dhamma.

            metta,
            Yong Peng
          • Ong Yong Peng
            Dear Danya and friends, allow me to add that Buddhism is not a dogmatic, blind faith religion. Therefore, grace is not the deterministic factor to Nibbana,
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Danya and friends,

              allow me to add that Buddhism is not a dogmatic, "blind faith"
              religion. Therefore, grace is not the deterministic factor to
              Nibbana, even in Pure Land Buddhism.

              This thought led me to the word faith, which is also not greatly
              emphasized in Buddhism as in other religions. But, that doesn't mean
              that faith is futile in Buddhist practice.

              Many western writers have given Buddhism a new perspective, and this
              includes Sharon Salzberg's Faith (ISBN: 1573222283). This may be an
              area you want to consider -- the ever evolving globalising Buddhism.
              And living in America means that you can easily get in touch with
              these contemporary Buddhist thinkers.

              As for the word kamma, with right understanding and right effort, all
              humans can attain nibbana here and now in their present lives,
              regardless of their past kamma. Nina had, in a previous mail, related
              Angulimala's story and kamma.

              metta,
              Yong Peng
            • Ong Yong Peng
              Dear Danya and friends, I missed out the last question. :-) So, here s my reply. Compassion brings peace and love to all, as it is unconditional. Grace is
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Danya and friends,

                I missed out the last question. :-) So, here's my reply. Compassion
                brings peace and love to all, as it is unconditional. Grace is
                conditional, conditions vary from religion to religion, including
                demands and commandments. Therefore, grace does not bring true peace
                and love, and definitely not to all.

                metta,
                Yong Peng

                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Danya Furda wrote:
                Also, I am distinguishing between the concept of grace and that of
                compassion.
              • rjkjp1
                ... all ... Dear Yong peng, I understand this point differently. There are said to be at this present time only two types of human : Neyya and padaparama.
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <ypong001@y...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > As for the word kamma, with right understanding and right effort,
                  all
                  > humans can attain nibbana here and now in their present lives,
                  > regardless of their past kamma.
                  >_________________
                  Dear Yong peng,
                  I understand this point differently.
                  There are said to be at this present time only two types of human :
                  Neyya and padaparama.
                  Neyya may or may not be able to attain in this present life .
                  However, padaparama definitely cannot attain in this life and can
                  only make conditions that may lead to success in future lives.
                  Even at the Buddha's time there were those such as King Ajatasattu
                  whose kamma (in this case killing his father) meant they could not
                  attain in that life .
                  Robertk
                • Ong Yong Peng
                  Dear Robert and friends, you are right, Robert. Thanks for pointing that out. Padaparamas are indeed the exceptions. metta, Yong Peng
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Robert and friends,

                    you are right, Robert. Thanks for pointing that out. Padaparamas are
                    indeed the exceptions.

                    metta,
                    Yong Peng

                    --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rjkjp1 wrote:
                    > > As for the word kamma, with right understanding and right effort,
                    > all
                    > > humans can attain nibbana here and now in their present lives,
                    > > regardless of their past kamma.
                    > >_________________
                    > Dear Yong peng,
                    > I understand this point differently.
                    > There are said to be at this present time only two types of human :
                    > Neyya and padaparama.
                    > Neyya may or may not be able to attain in this present life .
                    > However, padaparama definitely cannot attain in this life and can
                    > only make conditions that may lead to success in future lives.
                    > Even at the Buddha's time there were those such as King Ajatasattu
                    > whose kamma (in this case killing his father) meant they could not
                    > attain in that life .
                    > Robertk
                  • Lennart Lopin
                    Dear Danya, On your interesting thesis we even had a small discussion here among friends. Actually, before you came up with your working thesis on grace, we
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Danya,

                      On your interesting thesis we even had a small discussion here among
                      friends. Actually, before you came up with your "working thesis" on grace,
                      we automatically thought of the (christian) concept of grace in a buddhist
                      context and couldnt bring them together in any way (especially thinking of
                      grace in a protestant context - it is sooo apart from the Buddhist point of
                      view - none taking responsibility for your actions other than you. Yourself
                      the one who eventually has to cross the stream, albeit taking the help of
                      other kalyana mittas.)

                      I understand now, that you try to explain the Buddhas to be special
                      embodiements of the Dhamma, especially in a sense that they possess for
                      instance the 10 powers and have accumulated sila, samadhi and panna during
                      inamaginable long aeons - thus they would be kind of a "representative
                      reality" (sic) who - because of their "grace" convey or "bestow" the dhamma
                      on other beings even though they are murderers like Angulimala.

                      Well, i think that the term, as it is so bound up with some of the most
                      contrary concepts to Buddhist thought (as Yong Peng pointed out) and
                      Angulimala in fact (as Nina pointed out) was already "under the surface"
                      ready for understanding the dhamma, that it will be very difficult (to say
                      the least) to come to terms with it in a Buddhist (tipitaka) context.

                      That said, i wish you much luck for solving this task, but i am curious to
                      know, how you came to relate so diverse ideas to each other?

                      kind regards,

                      Lennart

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Danya Furda" <dfurda@...>
                      To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:25 PM
                      Subject: RE: [Pali] RE: kamma and grace


                      > Thanks for your help and suggestions. For the purposes of my thesis, I am
                      > defining grace as "a gift or favor given by a representative of ultimate
                      > reality without regard to the recipient's virtue and without which
                      ultimate
                      > liberation would not be possible." Many religious traditions embrace a
                      > concept of grace in this sense. There does not need to be a god or God to
                      > have a concept of grace. Grace needs not to be a technical term
                      monopolized
                      > by Christian theology. I am arguing here, however, that buddhas are
                      special
                      > beings and possess abilities and qualities not possessed by human beings
                      or
                      > even by devas.
                      >
                      > The concept of grace (as defined above) was brought to my attention while
                      > reading Peter Masefield's excellent book, Divine Revelation in Pali
                      > Buddhism. I guess my question in terms of grace is whether or not anyone
                      > else has come across other resources which explore the idea that a buddha
                      is
                      > an essential element for Dharma to be transmitted to others.
                      >
                      > Thanks Nina for the info on kamma. It appears that kamma is operative
                      > regardless whereas grace can only occur when a buddha is present in the
                      > world to reveal the Dharma to those ready to hear it. Also, I am
                      > distinguishing between the concept of grace and that of compassion. For
                      > something to be "grace," rather than just simply "compassion," it must
                      lead
                      > to assured ultimate liberation.
                      >
                      > Danya
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                      > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                      > Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
                      > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
                      web only.
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                    • Bruce Burrill
                      Grace is a concept that arises with in theistic context. Grace is given by god, though there is nothing we do to deserve it. Quite the contrary, being sinners,
                      Message 10 of 20 , Sep 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Grace is a concept that arises with in theistic context. Grace is given by
                        god, though there is nothing we do to deserve it. Quite the contrary, being
                        sinners, we do not.

                        >Dr Masefield's work has received
                        >high regards throughout buddhist circles.

                        Masefield's book is generally regarded by Buddhologists as eccentric, which
                        it is.
                      • Everett Thiele
                        Hi everyone, Offhand two main points of contact occur to me between Buddhism and Grace . I m not sure how theologically correct these are, but they might be
                        Message 11 of 20 , Sep 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi everyone,

                          Offhand two main points of contact occur to me between Buddhism and
                          "Grace". I'm not sure how theologically correct these are, but they
                          might be worth looking at.

                          1) In the Pali Canon and in stories such as in the Dhp-a the act of
                          putting faith in the Buddha is often enough for someone to get a
                          heavenly rebirth. This sounds a lot like the Christian idea of faith
                          being salvific. The difference would be that Christianity sees heaven
                          as the end of the line, whereas Buddhism sees it as a state from
                          which a being eventually falls.

                          I haven't checked the Angulimala Sutta, but IIRC he gains this sort
                          of faith to begin with. He then, of course, goes on to become an
                          Arahant.

                          2) Pure Land Buddhism goes further and allows for faith in Amitabha
                          to enable one to be reborn in a heavenly realm as a non-returner.
                          This sounds, on the surface of it, to be very much based on 'other
                          power' like in Christianity, and to be fully salvific even in
                          Buddhist terms.

                          I'm not sure, but perhaps this 'Pure Land' is related to the sorts of
                          very high heavens which can be attained by advanced meditators in the
                          Pali tradition. I'd be very interested in hearing if this has been
                          studied.

                          best regards,

                          --Rett
                        • Ong Yong Peng
                          Dear Everett, Bruce, Lennart and friends, thanks. As much as I know about Pure Land school, there are some differences. Anagamis have worked diligently on the
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 5, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Everett, Bruce, Lennart and friends,

                            thanks. As much as I know about Pure Land school, there are some
                            differences. Anagamis have worked diligently on the path to reach the
                            stage of non-returners. Beings reborn in pure lands may not have
                            reached the stage of anagami yet, however pure land is a place where
                            no new kamma would be created, hence achieving the result of non-
                            returning.

                            Furthermore, the heavenly realm anagamis reside in is still within
                            the samsaric realm, which is a result of the collective karma of all
                            sentient beings in that realm/world. A pure land, on the other hand,
                            is a result of a Buddha's past vows. Amitabha's past vows was to
                            construct such a pure land. Shakyamuni's past vows was to reach out
                            to the beings in samsara.

                            Unlike a heavenly realm where beings enjoy the fruits of their good
                            karma (in Buddhist teachings), a pure land is a more conducive place
                            than samsara for beings to practice till they reach nibbana.

                            metta,
                            Yong Peng

                            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Everett Thiele wrote:
                            > 2) Pure Land Buddhism goes further and allows for faith in Amitabha
                            > to enable one to be reborn in a heavenly realm as a non-returner.
                            > This sounds, on the surface of it, to be very much based on 'other
                            > power' like in Christianity, and to be fully salvific even in
                            > Buddhist terms.
                            >
                            > I'm not sure, but perhaps this 'Pure Land' is related to the sorts
                            of very high heavens which can be attained by advanced meditators in
                            the Pali tradition. I'd be very interested in hearing if this has
                            been studied.
                          • Brian Tawney
                            ... being ... I have heard this definition of grace, but I find it difficult to unravel. Having married a Christian, I have learned that her church believes
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 5, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Grace is a concept that arises with in theistic context. Grace is given by
                              > god, though there is nothing we do to deserve it. Quite the contrary,
                              being
                              > sinners, we do not.

                              I have heard this definition of grace, but I find it difficult to unravel.
                              Having married a Christian, I have learned that her church believes grace is
                              only given to those who practice Christianity correctly. In other words,
                              God (in the person of Christ) came into the world to teach how salvation
                              might be attained, but salvation must still be earned through individual
                              effort in the form of correct practice. Is this what is called "grace"?

                              The Buddha came into the world to teach how nibbana might be attained, but
                              nibbana must still be earned through individual effort in the form of
                              correct practice. Is this what is called "compassion"?

                              To my inexperienced mind, if there is something in the Christian idea of
                              "God's grace" that is not in the Buddhist idea of "Buddha's compassion", it
                              is that God created salvation, whereas the Buddha discovered nibbana. On
                              the other hand, Christians believe that God created everything else as well,
                              and Buddhists (as far as I know) simply don't address the question of why
                              reality should be so constructed that we can escape samsara.

                              If I have said anything someone knows to be wrong, let me know. This is one
                              of many topics I regularly come across in discussions with my wife.

                              Thank you.
                              Brian.
                              (new to the group)
                            • Ong Yong Peng
                              Dear Brian, I am afraid not so. Although, the Buddha taught out of compassion (unconditional love), nibbana is not a physical location where there is an
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 5, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Brian,

                                I am afraid not so. Although, the Buddha taught out of compassion
                                (unconditional love), nibbana is not a physical location where there
                                is an archangel guarding the gates to determine whether you have met
                                the criteria to enter. Nibbana is a state which only one who have
                                reached it can truly experience it, but there are of course many
                                books that try to explain it. The Buddhist experience and knowledge
                                is far much beyond the scope that the Christian doctrine can grasp.
                                This is a philosophical difference.

                                Buddhists do not practise to earn Buddha's compassion to reach
                                nibbana, Christians practise to earn God's grace to enter heaven. The
                                relationship between Buddha and Buddhists is teacher and students,
                                while that of God and Christians is master and servants. This is a
                                theological difference. In fact, without the concept of creation in
                                Hinduism, Taoism or Judaism, Buddhism is not even a theology.

                                metta,
                                Yong Peng

                                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Brian Tawney wrote:
                                The Buddha came into the world to teach how nibbana might be
                                attained, but nibbana must still be earned through individual effort
                                in the form of correct practice. Is this what is called "compassion"?
                              • rjkjp1
                                ... of ... faith ... heaven ... Dear Everett, I think a difference between most religions and Buddhism is that the Buddha taught any attachment, even to him,
                                Message 15 of 20 , Sep 5, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Everett Thiele <rett@t...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > 1) In the Pali Canon and in stories such as in the Dhp-a the act
                                  of
                                  > putting faith in the Buddha is often enough for someone to get a
                                  > heavenly rebirth. This sounds a lot like the Christian idea of
                                  faith
                                  > being salvific. The difference would be that Christianity sees
                                  heaven
                                  > as the end of the line, whereas Buddhism sees it as a state from
                                  > which a being eventually falls.
                                  > ________________
                                  Dear Everett,
                                  I think a difference between most religions and Buddhism is that the
                                  Buddha taught any attachment, even to him, is unwholesome.
                                  The mind states which condition rebirth in deva realms are kusala
                                  and all kusala cittas arise together with saddha. However faith - in
                                  its normal usage - may include kusala confidence in the virtues of
                                  the Buddha but it may also include attachment. Lobhamula citta
                                  (mindstate rooted in attachment) cannot directly condition rebirth
                                  in a heavenly realm.
                                  Once the Buddha scolded Vakkali for his attachment to Buddha:
                                  Yo kho Vakkali dhammam passati so mam passati Vakkali
                                  whoever sees Dhamma, sees me [the Buddha]
                                  RobertK
                                • nina van gorkom
                                  Dear Yong Peng and friends, op 05-09-2003 13:17 schreef Ong Yong Peng op ypong001@yahoo.com: Beings reborn in pure lands may not have ... N: According to the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Sep 6, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Yong Peng and friends,
                                    op 05-09-2003 13:17 schreef Ong Yong Peng op ypong001@...:
                                    Beings reborn in pure lands may not have
                                    > reached the stage of anagami yet, however pure land is a place where
                                    > no new kamma would be created, hence achieving the result of non-
                                    > returning.
                                    N: According to the Theravada tradition, anagamis still perform kamma which
                                    bring result. We read in Buddhist Dictionary, Ven. Nyanatiloka: <Now, a
                                    being through the disappearing of the five lower fetters (sa.myojana)
                                    reappears in a higher world (amongs the devas of the 'pure abodes'
                                    suddhaavaasa) and without returning from that world (into the Sensuous
                                    Spere) he there reaches Nirvana> Thus, he is not reborn in a sensuous plane,
                                    but still performs kamma in that higher plane.
                                    Only the arahat does not perform any new kamma, although he still receives
                                    results of former kammas for the remainder of his lifespan. That is why the
                                    arahat has, instead of kusala citta, mahaakiriyacitta. Kiriyacitta is
                                    inoperative, it does not bring result.
                                    Y: Furthermore, the heavenly realm anagamis reside in is still within
                                    > the samsaric realm, which is a result of the collective karma of all
                                    > sentient beings in that realm/world.
                                    N: I have heard the word collective kamma before, but we read in the Suttas
                                    time and again that the Buddha explained that beings are heirs to their own
                                    kamma, kamma is the womb from which they are born. Kammassakata ~naa.na,
                                    knowing kamma as one's own (saka) is clearly seen by insight knowledge,
                                    vipassana ~naa.na. According to Theravada tradition there is no collective
                                    kamma. This makes sense to me, because kamma is accumulated by each
                                    individual in the cycle, va.t.ta. Kamma is mental, it is intention, and thus
                                    it can be accumulated from moment to moment, from life to life.
                                    There are people who are born in a country where there is hunger and war, or
                                    people who are together in a accident. It may seem that they receive the
                                    same result, but in reality this is not so. There are different moments of
                                    pain, seeing, hearing, all results of kamma. A person may feel the pain of
                                    hunger but the next moment he may hear a pleasant sound. All different
                                    moments of vipaka and they cannot be the same for a group of people. There
                                    are also different intensities of vipaka.
                                    Instead of thinking of a whole situation of people, or groups of people who
                                    receive vipaka, we should analyse different moments of citta, then we come
                                    closer to reality. People react differently to the result they receive. Some
                                    people react with kusala citta, others with aversion, with akusala citta.
                                    The reason is that people have accumulated different inclinations, and
                                    different defilements, kilesas. In the commentary it is explained that there
                                    are three cycles: the cycle of kamma, the cycle of vipaka and the cycle of
                                    kilesa. Kilesa motivates again kamma and this produces again vipaka and this
                                    conditions again kilesa, and so we go on and on. Thus the three cycles keep
                                    turning around in our lives.
                                    Nina.
                                  • Ong Yong Peng
                                    Dear Nina and friends, thanks for everything, Nina. You are right about collective kamma, it is commonly used in Mahayana schools, and a search on collective
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 6, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear Nina and friends,

                                      thanks for everything, Nina. You are right about collective kamma, it
                                      is commonly used in Mahayana schools, and a search on collective
                                      karma will reveal that. I cannot for sure determine if the usage of
                                      the word is more of a convenience, but I have the idea it appears in
                                      Mahayana sutras.

                                      I totally agree on the explanation you have given on the Theravada
                                      perspective. And I apologise for my lack of knowledge and any
                                      confusion due to that. Browsing the web, I have found what Sayadaw U
                                      Silananda wrote on this topic:

                                      One more thing that should not be applied to the doctrine of kamma is
                                      the idea of mass kamma or collective kamma. There is no operation of
                                      a collective kamma affecting a group of people. There may be, however
                                      a group of people who do something together and who get the results
                                      of their individual kamma together. In that case, the results of each
                                      individual kamma is operating.

                                      http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/volition4.html

                                      metta,
                                      Yong Peng
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.