I was on a forum like area and there were people talking about karma, how it was not real because a person did mean things to another and did not have bad karma happening. I said that karma can come back at a later date, they said that the mind determines what is good and bad, and then I did not know how to reply.
Because I may not be clear, I shall include the link to our conversation.
http://www.mytelekinesis.com/why-karma-isn--t-a-law--just-a-law-made-by-yourselfxscenex.html
I would reply that as long as one still feels anger and hatred, the mind still creates karma, but I am not sure if it is the right thing to say.
Could you advice me on what you think or what I could say?
Karma is just like death. It happens to everyone regardless of their belief. Karma is just like death which is not determined by our mind. It is a natural law. Just like death, believe in it or not does not affect how karma works. If a person believes that he will not die young, it does not mean he will not die young. Birth and death are good examples, there are many things in life are not determined by our mind.
Who dares to say birth and death are determined by our mind? It is just that karma is not so straightforward as birth and death which can be seen. Only the fools dare to challenge karma.
Hi Beautiful,
I did not read the thread. But in short, i think karma does not only happen in very fixed definite discrete events of bad things happening to us due to what we have done. Although it also happens like that, but you can see karma working in a more subtle way. For eg, if someone is always producing anger in his mind, this builds up a habit in his mind, it affects his mannerisms, his expressions, his actions, his decisions although he may not really be aware of it. This may lead him to make further mistakes and create further suffering for himself both in actual situations happening and also due to the way he perceives the situation. Other people affected by his attitude and actions may also retaliate and cause more problems. So these problems, when they occur, cannot be definitely traced back to the anger in his mind, but it was a contributing factor.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:I was on a forum like area and there were people talking about karma, how it was not real because a person did mean things to another and did not have bad karma happening. I said that karma can come back at a later date, they said that the mind determines what is good and bad, and then I did not know how to reply.
Because I may not be clear, I shall include the link to our conversation.
http://www.mytelekinesis.com/why-karma-isn--t-a-law--just-a-law-made-by-yourselfxscenex.html
I would reply that as long as one still feels anger and hatred, the mind still creates karma, but I am not sure if it is the right thing to say.
Could you advice me on what you think or what I could say?
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.”
Sutta AN 4.77
Thank you for replying, I understand that karma can affect one's life, but I don't know if I am able to or even if I should explain that to those who don't belive.
Explain to those who are open minded only.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:Thank you for replying, I understand that karma can affect one's life, but I don't know if I am able to or even if I should explain that to those who don't belive.
For your instance, conjecture about the unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation.
Or explain the bliss of karma on unconjecturing the Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable.
Hi Beautiful1951,
in short you mean that the forumers felt that if the mind determine what's right or wrong, there will be good or bad karma respectively...?
then if a fisherman caught a net of fish, will he create bad karma.....?
i think it should be the ignorance in the mind that causes karma....
Originally posted by 2009novice:Hi Beautiful1951,
in short you mean that the forumers felt that if the mind determine what's right or wrong, there will be good or bad karma respectively...?
then if a fisherman caught a net of fish, will he create bad karma.....?
i think it should be the ignorance in the mind that causes karma....
I believe they think that right and wrong is in the mind.
I still do not know what creates karma, but I am doing all I can to create only good karma.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:I believe they think that right and wrong is in the mind.
I still do not know what creates karma, but I am doing all I can to create only good karma.
erm... maybe u can look at the dependent origination
ignorance-> give rise to karma-> karma give rise to consciousness->etc etc
Originally posted by Beautiful951:Thank you for replying, I understand that karma can affect one's life, but I don't know if I am able to or even if I should explain that to those who don't belive.
Birth and death are part of karma. If anyone can determine when, where and how to die, I would say he can determine karma. If not, he is still subject to karma. I believe no one dare to say he can do it.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:I still do not know what creates karma, but I am doing all I can to create only good karma.
later even "create good" also need to let go.
too bad become hate. too good become attachment. Buddha awaken to middle way.
/\
Thanks everyone for replying, could I also ask, because there are many times daily life I do not know if I am creating good karma or bad karma.
An example would be getting up to give your seat to a person. But you knock another person in the process.
Because sometimes there seems that if one does something, you help a person but hinder another, in such cases, should I just ignore and do nothing?
Hi Beautiful, unintentional actions does not produce karma. Karma is intentional action.
For example if you did not intend to knock into someone else, then that will not produce bad karma.
Our karmic actions consist of four factors: 1) The intention 2) The plan to carry it out 3) The action itself, and 4) The rejoicing in committing the deed. When all four of these factors are present, the karma committed is very strong. When these factors are not all present, then it is not a complete karmic act. For example, if someone accidentally ran over a snake with a car there was no intention, no plan and one possibly had remorse. Therefore it is not a complete karmic act. ~ Khenchen Rinpoche
The lack of intention may lessen the strength of the karma but there is still karma created.
Another presentation ... (this webpage has very good detailed explanation on karma)
The Four Factors Needed for Karmic Results To Be the Fullest
When we speak about a karmic action, four factors need to be complete for the results to be the fullest. If any of these factors is missing, the result will not be so strong. But that doesn’t mean that there will be no results.
First of all is a basis. There needs to be a basis, a being or an object at which the act is aimed. We thought that someone was in the bathroom too long and we started yelling at them, but then it turned out that there was nobody there. This is not as strong as if there actually were someone there. There has to be someone who hears our yelling, understands it, and believes that we mean it. If the person is deaf or had the radio playing and couldn’t hear us, it is not so strong.
The second factor that needs to be complete is the urge, meaning the karma itself, and the other factors that accompany the urge. So there needs to be a correct distinguishing of the object. For example, I thought that was my umbrella that I took, but I was mistaken and I took your umbrella by mistake. If we do this by mistake, then it has a much weaker result than choosing the best umbrella and taking it. But, even though we took it by mistake, it is still a destructive action; it is just that it is not so strong a destructive action. The second accompanying component is the intention. If the intention is not there, it is like when we are dancing with somebody and we didn’t intend to step on their foot, but we did. That is much less heavy than if we did it intentionally. Then the third component is that there needs to be a disturbing emotion if we are talking about a destructive action. If we kill a mosquito that is buzzing around our baby’s head and we do it not because we hate the mosquito but we have love for our baby and want to protect it; that is very different from killing the mosquito because we hate it. All of that was the second factor, the urge.
The third factor is the action. We have to actually do it. If I was planning to yell at you, but then somebody came to the door or the telephone rang and I didn’t actually do it, it is not as heavy as actually doing it. If I just dreamt of killing you, I didn’t actually do it in real life. Although that dream killing is a destructive action and could be accompanied with a lot of anger and so on and we could very intentionally kill the person in the dream, it is not as heavy as killing the actual person because there is no action involved.
Then the finale has to be there. This is the fourth factor. If we shoot at someone intending to kill them and miss and just shoot them in the arm, our action didn’t reach the intended conclusion, so it is not as heavy. If we really wanted to hurt someone by what we said and it didn’t hurt them at all, because they didn’t believe us or whatever, it is not as heavy as if it actually had hurt the person. The same if we lied and they didn’t believe us. We can see that the results of our actions are really quite complex; there are many different factors involved.
Hi Dharmadhatu, my understanding of karma differs from the sources you provided.
The Buddha says:
"Monks it is volition that I call kamma. For having willed, one then acts by body, speech or mind". What really lies behind all action, the essence of all action, is volition, the power of the will. It is this volition expressing itself as action of body, speech and mind that the Buddha calls kamma.
[Commentary Bhikku Bodhi:]This means that unintentional action is not kamma. If we accidently step on some ants while walking down the street, that is not the kamma of taking life, for there was no intention to kill. If we speak some statement believing it to be true and it turns out to be false, this is not the kamma of lying, for there is no intention of deceiving.
A group of monks once stopped bathing because a lot of bugs, insects were crawling around and they didn't want to kill them.
The Buddha told them basic cleaniness is necessary, try to sweep them away and avoid injury to them as much as possible, but still one must bathe.
So if the bugs are unintentionally killed in that case, the monks are still blameless and cannot be said to have incurred karma.
Sinweiy posted this some time ago:
Neutral Actions
The law of karma does not apply to actions such as walking, sitting or sleeping. Such actions do not produce effects apart from the actions themselves. Similarly, accidentally killing an insect is considered a neutral action because it is unintentional.
There was once a blind monk who would , while walking about, accidentally step on ants, thereby killing them. when his fellow monks noticed this, they report it to the Buddha who pointed out that as the blind monk's killing of the ants was unintentional, it was neither wholesome nor unwholesome karma and no corresponding effect would arise.
i can sort of relate to Dharmadhatu or Khenchen Rinpoche's saying for that matter.
that states:-
four different kinds of kamma were mentioned, classified according to their relationships with their respective results:
1. Black kamma, black result.
2. White kamma, white result.
3. Kamma both black and white, result both black and white.
4. Kamma neither black nor white, result neither black nor white, this being the kamma that ends kamma.[http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma5.htm]
hence with this fomula above, we can say unintentional kamma/action, can also result unintentional kamma/action. since there's an 'act' created.
i ever heard a story from Ven Hai Tao, that unintentional action also have unintentional effect. there was this monk who while preaching, accidentally kill an insect. after few rebirth, the insect later was reborn as a wild boar which had an itchy teeth. so it went to scratch on a huge rock. which fell from the cliff and killed the monk below. the wild boar was also unintentional.
i am sure Ven Hai Tao took the story from a reliable source. so nothing much to blame, just be more mindful in our act be it body, speech and mind.
/\
Yeah heard that before. But still, my understanding of karma is volition - intentional actions. Unless you can show a scripture that states otherwise...
I have never read any teaching by Buddha saying that there is such a thing as unintentional karmas.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:Thanks everyone for replying, could I also ask, because there are many times daily life I do not know if I am creating good karma or bad karma.
An example would be getting up to give your seat to a person. But you knock another person in the process.
Because sometimes there seems that if one does something, you help a person but hinder another, in such cases, should I just ignore and do nothing?
This is too restrictive and controlling by karma making your life little room for joys.
Buddha mentioned 信為é�“æº�功德æ¯�ï¼Œé•·é¤Šä¸€åˆ‡è«¸å–„æ ¹. The above link is arguing on present lifespan on his personal understanding of "believing vs knowing" that emphasized his personal experience on the latter to impress upon. The author failed to realize his amount of blessing in current life that karma is like maths having addition substraction multipication and division etc. Well! he may argue on the aspect of deserving of the other parties, and his thought during the attack mode was in disharmony, emotionally discharging arises of his thoughts.
Anyhow, Buddha mentioned 信為é�“æº�功德æ¯�ï¼Œé•·é¤Šä¸€åˆ‡è«¸å–„æ ¹ and odinary beings never would extirely understand the karmic function and performance. Hope it help. Amitabha _/\_
At that time Ksitigarbha Mahasattva said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, I see that every single movement or stirring of thought on the part of beings of Jambudvipa is an ‘offense’, is a karma. å�—阎浮æ��ä¼—ç”Ÿï¼Œèµ·å¿ƒåŠ¨å¿µï¼Œæ— ä¸�æ˜¯ç½ªï¼Œæ— ä¸�是业---- Ksitigarbha Sutra Chapter 7
At that time, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva Ksitigarbha addressed the Buddha, saying, "O World Honored One, I see that the sentient beings in Jambudvipa are doing nothing but committing karma when a thought arises or when an idea is generated. --- Ksitigarbha Sutra Chapter 7
i think in Mahayana, it is more into refine subtleness of karma as in the above sutra. taking about ignorance karma. ( like as long, one is not totally Fully Enlightened Buddha, there's still some bit of karma left. Like Avalokitesvara also have last bit of ç”Ÿç›¸æ— æ˜Ž haven't sever yet. )
this link by P. A. Payutto also got mentioned about the "subtleness" of karma.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm#Kinds
a. Kamma as intention
Essentially, kamma is intention (cetana), and this word includes will, choice and decision, the mental impetus which leads to action. Intention is that which instigates and directs all human actions, both creative and destructive, and is therefore the essence of kamma, as is given in the Buddha's words, Cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami: Monks! Intention, I say, is kamma. Having willed, we create kamma, through body, speech and mind.[2]
At this point we might take some time to broaden our understanding of this word "intention." "Intention" in the context of Buddhism has a much subtler meaning than it has in common usage. In the English language, we tend to use the word when we want to provide a link between internal thought and its resultant external actions. For example, we might say, "I didn't intend to do it," "I didn't mean to say it" or "she did it intentionally."
But according to the teachings of Buddhism, all actions and speech, all thoughts, no matter how fleeting, and the responses of the mind to sensations received through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, without exception, contain elements of intention. Intention is thus the mind's volitional choosing of objects of awareness; it is the factor which leads the mind to turn towards, or be repelled from, various objects of awareness, or to proceed in any particular direction; it is the guide or the governor of how the mind responds to stimuli; it is the force which plans and organizes the movements of the mind, and ultimately it is that which determines the states experienced by the mind.
One instance of intention is one instance of kamma. When there is kamma there is immediate result. Even just one little thought, although not particularly important, is nevertheless not void of consequence. It will be at the least a "tiny speck" of kamma, added to the stream of conditions which shape mental activity. With repeated practice, through repeated proliferation by the mind, or through expression as external activity, the result becomes stronger in the form of character traits, physical features or repercussions from external sources.
A destructive intention does not have to be on a gross level. It may, for example, lead to the destruction of only a very small thing, such as when we angrily tear up a piece of paper. Even though that piece of paper has no importance in itself, the action still has some effect on the quality of the mind. The effect is very different from tearing up a piece of paper with a neutral state of mind, such as when throwing away scrap paper. If there is repeated implementation of such angry intention, the effects of accumulation will become clearer and clearer, and may develop to more significant levels.
Consider the specks of dust which come floating unnoticed into a room; there isn't one speck which is void of consequence. It is the same for the mind. But the weight of that consequence, in addition to being dependent on the amount of mental "dust," is also related to the quality of the mind. For instance, specks of dust which alight onto a road surface have to be of a very large quantity before the road will seem to be dirty. Specks of dust which alight onto a floor, although of a much smaller quantity, may make the floor seem dirtier than the road. A smaller amount of dust accumulating on a table top will seem dirty enough to cause irritation. An even smaller amount alighting on a mirror will seem dirty and will interfere with its functioning. A tiny speck of dust on a spectacle lens is perceptible and can impair vision. In the same way, volition or intention, no matter how small, is not void of fruit. As the Buddha said:
"All kamma, whether good or evil, bears fruit. There is no kamma, no matter how small, which is void of fruit."[3]
In any case, the mental results of the law of kamma are usually overlooked, so another illustration might be helpful:
There are many kinds of water: the water in a sewer, the water in a canal, tap water, and distilled water for mixing a hypodermic injection. Sewer water is an acceptable habitat for many kinds of water animals, but is not suitable for bathing, drinking or medicinal use. Water in a canal may be used to bathe or to wash clothes but is not drinkable. Tap water is drinkable but cannot be used for mixing a hypodermic injection. If there is no special need, then tap water is sufficient for most purposes, but one would be ill-advised to use it to mix a hypodermic injection.
In the same way, the mind has varying levels of refinement or clarity, depending on accumulated kamma. As long as the mind is being used on a coarse level, no problem may be apparent, but if it is necessary to use the mind on a more refined level, previous unskillful kamma, even on a minor scale, may become an obstacle.
so for the paper tearing example, its also difficult to know from neutral or got a bit angry when tearing. as ignorance is also a karma. or very pure neutral karma is throwing away scrap paper without harming another living beings.
/\