Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Ben »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:This is substantially closer to what I'm saying, yes.
Perhaps its the fresh air, or me turning Tasmanian, but I am struggling to understand the difference.
retrofuturist wrote:But also keep in mind the vedana is a sankhata dhamma (formed dhamma), and that which is formed (sankhata), is formed by ignorance.
Formed? I would say 'conditioned' by ignorance (ultimately) via the agency of contact.
retrofuturist wrote:So what would the vedana of an arahant free of ignorance be like?
Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.
retrofuturist wrote:I think the following extract from one of Venerable Nanananda's Nibbana Sermon 11, as quoted earlier, gives some idea (especially the bolded red bit)
Thanks, I'll have to read it several times.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:Formed?
Whatever English word you use for sankhara or sankhata (past tense) will suffice. To me, sankhara relates to formations, actively formed from a basis of ignorance.
Ben wrote:Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.
Yes, those qualities would still apply, but these qualities may be experienced differently by the arahant with a lokuttara nibbanic mind (as per the quote from Nanananda)
Ben wrote:Thanks, I'll have to read it several times.
:reading: :reading: :reading: :reading: :reading: :reading: :reading:

Time spent reading venerable Nanananda is time well spent.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by acinteyyo »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:The Buddha's teaching on kamma simply is that kamma bears fruits.
...
But a particular person possibly draws for example hate of locals as a fruit of action. Don't you think?
I think that's over-simplifying it. What you speak here is nothing other than conventional cause and effect... hardly a radical new and profound teaching.
Maybe not that much radical new and profound teaching for today but back then in times of the Buddha. As I see it one has to be very careful here. Sure all that can also be just conventional cause and effect. Even if Angulimala would have killed many people unintentionally he could have also drawn hate of the locals which would IMHO just be conventional cause and effect then. The point is that we can't safely say that Angulimalas intention to kill these people which lead to the act of killing has nothing to do with the very same result of drawing hate of the locals which would then be kamma/vipaka IMHO. This is at least what the Buddha tells Angulimala about it:
The fruit of the kamma [...] you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"
An experience is nāmarūpa and viññāna and although Angulimala became an arahant he's still experiencing, which is to say there is just presence of the phenomenon ('This is present'), instead of the presence (or existence) of an apparent 'subject' to whom there is present an 'object' ('I am, and this is present to [or for] me'), to say it with the words of Ven. Ñanavira. "Being" an arahant Angulimala is certainly free from suffering, the aggregates of grasping (pañc'upādānakkhandhā) are no longer applicable but the aggregates (pañcakhandhā) still are.
retrofuturist wrote:The five aggregates are our experience. The six senses are our experience.
Where do clods fit in to that? The feel of clods, the taste of clods, the smell of clods, the smell of clods.... but not the clods, in and of themselves, independent of receiving consciousness.
Angulimala experienced feeling (of clod, of cuts)... not "clod" itself.
You can say it that way but this doesn't alter the fact that Angulimala was experiencing, which is to say there was presence of the phenomenon. And I understand this as vipaka of Angulimalas kamma like the Buddha says in that particular sutta.
No mystic mumbo jumbo, kammic gravity vortex or anything like that, just nāmarūpa and viññāna.

And I still see no reason to accept that vipaka should be only mental phenomenon.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:The point is that we can't safely say that Angulimalas intention to kill these people which lead to the act of killing has nothing to do with the very same result of drawing hate of the locals
Here we agree.
acinteyyo wrote:which would then be kamma/vipaka IMHO.

... and here we diverge. Let's say, theoretically, that Angulimala was framed... it was all a stitch-up and that he never killed anybody. People would still throw clods regardless, wouldn't they? Now, what would you attribute that clod throwing activity to? Have a good think about that, and I look forward to your answer.
acinteyyo wrote:This is at least what the Buddha tells Angulimala about it:
The fruit of the kamma [...] you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"
... and as I asked Tilt, was the Buddha using kamma in a conventional sense (i.e. doing something) or Dhammic sense (i.e. cetana), and was he using fruit in a conventional (i.e. consequence) or Dhammic sense (i.e. experienced resultant)?

Since they're the same words in either case, and the Buddha spoke using conventional and Dhammic terms at different times, who is to say for sure?
acinteyyo wrote:An experience is nāmarūpa and viññāna and although Angulimala became an arahant he's still experiencing, which is to say there is just presence of the phenomenon ('This is present'), instead of the presence (or existence) of an apparent 'subject' to whom there is present an 'object' ('I am, and this is present to [or for] me'), to say it with the words of Ven. Ñanavira. "Being" an arahant Angulimala is certainly free from suffering, the aggregates of grasping (pañc'upādānakkhandhā) are no longer applicable but the aggregates (pañcakhandhā) still are.
Agree.
acinteyyo wrote:You can say it that way but this doesn't alter the fact that Angulimala was experiencing, which is to say there was presence of the phenomenon. And I understand this as vipaka of Angulimalas kamma like the Buddha says in that particular sutta.
I don't see how mere "presence of phenomenon" is connected with kamma and/or vipaka though... perhaps your response to the aforementioned question will give me some insight into your thinking.
acinteyyo wrote:No mystic mumbo jumbo, kammic gravity vortex or anything like that, just nāmarūpa and viññāna.
Good. Though even for those who buy into the mystic mumbo jumbo, tales of kamma are still good as morality teachings or fables to encourage people to do good and avoid bad. That's one positive, even if it's an incomplete picture.
acinteyyo wrote:And I still see no reason to accept that vipaka should be only mental phenomenon.
Well you've have to take that up with ven. Nyanatiloka and the Kathavatthu. In the meantime, I'll repeat that I think the important aspect is that vipaka occurs within loka, not outside of it... and the arahant's experience is lokuttara.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Dan74 »

Hi Retro - thanks for replying
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Sorry to butt in, but there is also a small possibility that the Buddha was helping Ven Angulimala accept what was happening to him and not give rise to unwholesome thoughts. After all, why console him by saying essentially that it was much better that this was happening now than him enduring hell for what he had done?
It's an interesting question as to why he would feel the need to say it to an arahant in the first place, who, by definition is incapable of unwholesome thoughts.
Why would the Buddha say that Ven Angulimala, an arahant, would have burned in hell for thousands of years, had he not been injured and suffered the fruit of his kamma then?

Perhaps he was not yet an arahant? What about the mention of his experiencing release later on?
Dan74 wrote:Of course, there is a possibility that the text isn't faithful to the original exchange too...
Maybe, maybe not... it just seems to mean different things to different people. On one hand it could be seen as the doling out of a comparatively trifling vipaka (which is the seemingly common interpretation)... or alternatively, it could be a case of, "Well, Angulimala, given all those people you killed, you're damned lucky you've transcended becoming and that therefore this is the only consequence you'll experience as a result of your actions..."
These two don't seem to contradict one another.
Dan74 wrote:As for the various positions - tilt's position seems to be common sense, I am not sure I understand retro's position...
I'm quite comfortable with that. :)

Metta,
Retro. :)
OK, but thanks for clearing it up anyway.

PS As to your hypothetical question to accinteyyo "what is Angulimala had been framed and still experienced the assault by the villagers" - I guess the traditional answer would be that this would have been the fruit of past kamma from previous lifetimes. I know in the absence of seeing how such mechanism works, such answer is deeply unsatisfying, but there is plenty of canonical evidence for this at least.
Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Why would the Buddha say that Ven Angulimala, an arahant, would have burned in hell for thousands of years, had he not been injured and suffered the fruit of his kamma then?
Because he would have experienced such hells........ if he wasn't an arahant! Hence what I'm saying about escaping the net of vipaka through the attainment of arahantship. It wasn't getting hit that wiped away that fate, it was the attainment of arahantship.

Angulimala experienced just conventional consequences (i.e. people being mad at him) rather than the Dhammic consequences (experienced resultant) he would have also faced.
Dan74 wrote:Perhaps he was not yet an arahant? What about the mention of his experiencing release later on?
The sutta itself states that he attained arahantship prior to this incident.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:PS As to your hypothetical question to accinteyyo "what is Angulimala had been framed and still experienced the assault by the villagers" - I guess the traditional answer would be that this would have been the fruit of past kamma from previous lifetimes.
Which would of course be highly speculative, and fall into the domain of the 'unconjecturables' or 'unknowables'. It would also fall foul to the wrong view of pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous kamma (a.k.a. past-action determinism.)

I do appreciate you making the effort to take on this challenge though Dan, and I do hope others who think my views on kamma and vipaka are slightly unhinged take the challenge too. For those who missed it, "Let's say, theoretically, that Angulimala was framed... it was all a stitch-up and that he never killed anybody. People would still throw clods regardless, wouldn't they? Now, what would you attribute that clod throwing activity to?"
Dan74 wrote:I know in the absence of seeing how such mechanism works, such answer is deeply unsatisfying, but there is plenty of canonical evidence for this at least.
The Buddha did often explain individual instances of kamma and its fruition as they applied to others, yes.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Why would the Buddha say that Ven Angulimala, an arahant, would have burned in hell for thousands of years, had he not been injured and suffered the fruit of his kamma then?
Because he would have experienced such hells........ if he wasn't an arahant! Hence what I'm saying about escaping the net of vipaka through the attainment of arahantship. It wasn't getting hit that wiped away that fate, it was the attainment of arahantship.
Well, but this is not what the Buddha says. He says
"Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"
This sounds (to me) like he is saying - "be thankful that this happened to you, that you are paying now, otherwise you would've burnt in hell to pay your kammic debt." Now arahants aren't supose to burn in hells, are they? (or they just don't suffer when they do? :) )
retro wrote: Angulimala experienced just conventional consequences (i.e. people being mad at him) rather than the Dhammic consequences (experienced resultant) he would have also faced.
This is not a distinction I am familiar with. Any references you could provide?
retro wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Perhaps he was not yet an arahant? What about the mention of his experiencing release later on?
The sutta itself states that he attained arahantship prior to this incident.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Yes, I know. However, it also mentioned attaining (or enjoying?) release later. What's with that?
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,

No, I think you're reading the sutta differently to all of us... which perhaps, if anything, goes to prove my point that the interpretation of the sentence in question is not as clearly obvious as some might make out.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Dan74 »

Well, Ven Angulimala himself in a verse says:
Having done the type of kamma
that would lead to many
bad destinations,
touched by the fruit of [that] kamma,
unindebted, I eat my food.
Again, this sounds like him saying that paying his kammic debt saved him from many bad destinations. Nowhere in the sutta I see that arahatship saved him from suffering the consequences of his past kamma. Have I missed something?
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
retro wrote:Angulimala experienced just conventional consequences (i.e. people being mad at him) rather than the Dhammic consequences (experienced resultant) he would have also faced.
Dan74 wrote:This is not a distinction I am familiar with. Any references you could provide?
Take again the hypothetical "Angulimala was innocent" scenario.

The "conventional consequences" of being falsely regarded as a murderer are getting abused by townsfolk.
The "Dhammic consequences" (i.e. vipaka) of being falsely regarded as a murderer are nil... because there he performed no unwholesome activity (i.e. no murder).

The fact the conventional consequence would have been the same regardless of the kamma (cetana, intention, volition) is in my mind proof that the clod incident wasn't vipaka in the true Dhammic sense of the word.

In my mind the two (conventional and Dhammic results) are completely separate domains, and conflation of the two leads to confusion (and ultimately superstition and tit-for-tat) in relation to kamma and its resultant.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:Well, Ven Angulimala himself in a verse
If, of course, you believe Angulimala actually burst out in verse with a grab bag of quotes from the Dhammapada. The verses at the ends of suttas are often a form of proto-commentary, and I wouldn't place any more stock in this than what modern scholars place in the literal authenticity of the Theragatha verses. To be polite, they show the work of the redactors of the canon.

I agree though that the... Arahantship > Clods > "Release" sequence towards the end of MN 86 certainly adds to the confusion.

Well that's it for me for the evening... I'll see what posts await me in the morning.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:which would then be kamma/vipaka IMHO.

... and here we diverge. Let's say, theoretically, that Angulimala was framed... it was all a stitch-up and that he never killed anybody. People would still throw clods regardless, wouldn't they? Now, what would you attribute that clod throwing activity to? Have a good think about that, and I look forward to your answer.
IF theoretically Angulimala was framed... it was all a stich-up and he never killed anybody and we assume people would still throw clods regardless, then it would have nothing to do with kamma/vipaka but only if we assume these particular circumstances. It would be a completely different case. This is the important thing I want to point out. We can't draw conclusions from an effect only and we can't mix up completely different issues. When we consider this theoretically, assuming that Angulimala was framed and never killed anybody and people threw clods we have to interpret this as conventional cause and effect. But with respect to the particular sutta we have to accept that it is a true fact that Angulimala killed intentionally and that the following experience (whatever this actually was) was the fruit of kamma.
retrofuturist wrote:The fact the conventional consequence would have been the same regardless of the kamma (cetana, intention, volition) is in my mind proof that the clod incident wasn't vipaka in the true Dhammic sense of the word.
This proofs nothing. How can you differentiate a conventional consequence from a result as fruit of kamma? This is what I'm trying to point out. A theoretical imagination which ends in the very same result but where kamma does not play a role doesn't proof in any way that an incident wasn't vipaka. It just shows that theoretically a conventional consequence where kamma doesn't play a role can be thought, too. Nothing else...
retrofuturist wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:This is at least what the Buddha tells Angulimala about it:
The fruit of the kamma [...] you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"
... and as I asked Tilt, was the Buddha using kamma in a conventional sense (i.e. doing something) or Dhammic sense (i.e. cetana), and was he using fruit in a conventional (i.e. consequence) or Dhammic sense (i.e. experienced resultant)?
It is new for me to hear that the Buddhe ever used the word kamma in a conventional sense for "doing something". As fas as I know the Buddha used kamma exclusively in Dhammic sense as cetana.
retrofuturist wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:You can say it that way but this doesn't alter the fact that Angulimala was experiencing, which is to say there was presence of the phenomenon. And I understand this as vipaka of Angulmalas kamma like the Buddha says in that particular sutta.
I don't see how mere "presence of phenomenon" is connected with kamma and/or vipaka though... perhaps your response to the aforementioned question will give me some insight into your thinking.
An experience is nāmarūpa and viññāna. This is mere "presence of phenomenon" in case of the arahant (pañcakhandhā) . Here we both agree I guess?
In case of the arahant there won't be new kamma but there still is experience. And vipaka is an experience, a mere "presence of phenomenon". What else should be necessary? Anything in addition to "presence of phenomenon" in order to be vipaka? Within nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") kamma (an action) can happen (which in itself is "presence of phenomenon") which bears fruit in form of nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") later regardless whether or not the production of new kamma has ceased meanwhile. When the bullet left the barrel it doesn't matter whether the gun still points to the target or not, it won't affect the bullet from hiting something.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:IF theoretically Angulimala was framed... it was all a stich-up and he never killed anybody and we assume people would still throw clods regardless, then it would have nothing to do with kamma/vipaka but only if we assume these particular circumstances. It would be a completely different case. This is the important thing I want to point out. We can't draw conclusions from an effect only and we can't mix up completely different issues. When we consider this theoretically, assuming that Angulimala was framed and never killed anybody and people threw clods we have to interpret this as conventional cause and effect. But with respect to the particular sutta we have to accept that it is a true fact that Angulimala killed intentionally and that the following experience (whatever this actually was) was the fruit of kamma.
(Bolding mine...) As I read this, you start saying one thing and finish by saying another, and it doesn't seem logically consistent to me. You're effectively saying that if Effect X occurs regardless, it is vipaka if the person created kamma, but it's not vipaka if they didn't. Unless you have some chaos theory to spring on us, effect doesn't determine cause.
retrofuturist wrote:The fact the conventional consequence would have been the same regardless of the kamma (cetana, intention, volition) is in my mind proof that the clod incident wasn't vipaka in the true Dhammic sense of the word.
acinteyyo wrote:This proofs nothing. How can you differentiate a conventional consequence from a result as fruit of kamma?
Vipaka takes place within the world (loka) as defined by the Buddha, conventional consequences take place outside loka in the conventional "world".
acinteyyo wrote:It is new for me to hear that the Buddhe ever used the word kamma in a conventional sense for "doing something". As fas as I know the Buddha used kamma exclusively in Dhammic sense as cetana.
As far as I can tell, the Buddha was the first to associate cetana with 'action' to form the Dhammic notion of kamma. What word would he use for action, as understood conventionally? Even then, it doesn't really matter what definition he was using... the point is that the attainment of arahantship cuts off kamma and vipaka at their root, as explained by the cessation mode of the dependent origination sequence.
acinteyyo wrote:An experience is nāmarūpa and viññāna. This is mere "presence of phenomenon" in case of the arahant (pañcakhandhā) . Here we both agree I guess?
In case of the arahant there won't be new kamma but there still is experience. And vipaka is an experience, a mere "presence of phenomenon". What else should be necessary? Anything in addition to "presence of phenomenon" in order to be vipaka? Within nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") kamma (an action) can happen (which in itself is "presence of phenomenon") which bears fruit in form of nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") later regardless whether or not the production of new kamma has ceased meanwhile.
But Angulimala was apparently an arahant at this point, which means he had seen already through the illusion of nāmarūpa, therefore nāmarūpa does not apply (again, refer to the cessation mode of the dependent origination sequence). What definition of nāmarūpa are you using - are you taking an ontological "mind and body" rendering?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hey ho Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:IF theoretically Angulimala was framed... it was all a stich-up and he never killed anybody and we assume people would still throw clods regardless, then it would have nothing to do with kamma/vipaka but only if we assume these particular circumstances. It would be a completely different case. This is the important thing I want to point out. We can't draw conclusions from an effect only and we can't mix up completely different issues. When we consider this theoretically, assuming that Angulimala was framed and never killed anybody and people threw clods we have to interpret this as conventional cause and effect. But with respect to the particular sutta we have to accept that it is a true fact that Angulimala killed intentionally and that the following experience (whatever this actually was) was the fruit of kamma.
(Bolding mine...) As I read this, you start saying one thing and finish by saying another, and it doesn't seem logically consistent to me. You're effectively saying that if Effect X occurs regardless, it is vipaka if the person created kamma, but it's not vipaka if they didn't. Unless you have some chaos theory to spring on us, effect doesn't determine cause.
I agree that effect doesn't determine cause. I wonder why you struggle with what I said, since you seem to have understood what I was trying to say. It's completely right that I'm saying that IF effect X occurs regardles it is vipaka if the person created kamma, but it's not vipaka if the person didn't create kamma. How could an effect be the fruit of action if the person didn't create the act in the first place? And keep in mind that we don't know whether effect X would have been occured regardless. We're just assuming two different cases theoretically. In the first case it's simply conventional cause/effect in the second it's kamma/vipaka. Don't you think there is the possibility that conventional cause/effect and kamma/vipaka can lead to one and the same outcome? At least it's theoratically imaginable.
retrofuturist wrote:The fact the conventional consequence would have been the same regardless of the kamma (cetana, intention, volition) is in my mind proof that the clod incident wasn't vipaka in the true Dhammic sense of the word.
acinteyyo wrote:This proofs nothing. How can you differentiate a conventional consequence from a result as fruit of kamma?
Vipaka takes place within the world (loka) as defined by the Buddha, conventional consequences take place outside loka in the conventional "world".
This doesn't make any sense to me. Whether there is an "outside conventional world" or not lies beyond range. All we can talk about is the world as defined by the Buddha, namely the All.
And vipaka as well as conventional consequences are experienced within "the All".
SN35.23
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
retrofuturist wrote:As far as I can tell, the Buddha was the first to associate cetana with 'action' to form the Dhammic notion of kamma. What word would he use for action, as understood conventionally? Even then, it doesn't really matter what definition he was using... the point is that the attainment of arahantship cuts off kamma and vipaka at their root, as explained by the cessation mode of the dependent origination sequence.
You're just assuming that I guess. The Buddha taught new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Show me only one single sutta which supports your assumption that attainment of arahantship not only cuts off kamma but also vipaka at their root. The root for vipaka is old kamma and old kamma can not be influenced at all, because it isn't in the here&now anymore. It happened and bears its fruit. The Buddhadhamma shows us how to end producing new kamma but it doesn't show us how to end old kamma. Why isn't there any sutta where the Buddha tells us that with the cessation of kamma there is the cessation of vipaka?
retrofuturist wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:An experience is nāmarūpa and viññāna. This is mere "presence of phenomenon" in case of the arahant (pañcakhandhā) . Here we both agree I guess?
In case of the arahant there won't be new kamma but there still is experience. And vipaka is an experience, a mere "presence of phenomenon". What else should be necessary? Anything in addition to "presence of phenomenon" in order to be vipaka? Within nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") kamma (an action) can happen (which in itself is "presence of phenomenon") which bears fruit in form of nāmarūpa and viññāna ("presence of phenomenon") later regardless whether or not the production of new kamma has ceased meanwhile.
But Angulimala was apparently an arahant at this point, which means he had seen already through the illusion of nāmarūpa, therefore nāmarūpa does not apply (again, refer to the cessation mode of the dependent origination sequence). What definition of nāmarūpa are you using - are you taking an ontological "mind and body" rendering?
Maybe we both have different understandings of DO. As I understand it, DO only applies to non-enlightend beings. With the attainment of arahantship DO doesn't apply anymore. But this doesn't mean that everything else ends with the attainment. The "living" Arahant is free from personality-view and conceit, free from grasping, "is simply gone out" with a rest remaining. What is left is mere presence of phenomenon and this is the five aggregates only (without grasping = pañcakhandhā). Now it becomes difficult. Because we cannot say that the arahant IS the five aggregates, this would not be in line with the teachings. But as long as we're talking about the "living arahant" pañcakhandhā is still there, which means nāmarūpa and viññāna, namely an experience is still there or mere presence of phenomenon untill the "death" of the "livining arahant" (parinibbana). And as long as parinibbana is not attained, the results (vipaka) of former actions (old kamma) can be experienced by means of pañcakhandhā.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply