Is Kamma self?

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Is Kamma self?

Postby mydoghasfleas » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:35 am

I'm not sure if this is the right board to pose this question but here it is.

I read:
When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity. -- Dhp 279

There is also:
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ... AN 5.57

And:
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" -- SN 22.59

Now I know the last excerpt is specifically talking about the five aggregates of clinging. But one of those aggregates is mental formations. Kamma is directly related to mental formations. So it would seem to be saying that Kamma is (also) not self.

Yet AN 5.57 seems to imply that Kamma is self.

Can someone here give me some insight as to how these three excerpts relate to one another?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.
User avatar
mydoghasfleas
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby reflection » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:42 pm

AN 5.57 is on a conventional level, not the deeper level of reality. It is more a practical encouragement that a specific person is responsible for his or her actions, not somebody else. And that that person will be the one getting the results of the actions. But that person an his or her actions are still without a self.
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby mydoghasfleas » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Well do you think Kamma could (or should) also be considered not self in an ultimate rather than a conventional sense?
User avatar
mydoghasfleas
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby reflection » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:50 pm

Yes. From experience, but also the suttas say that volition or intention -and thus kamma- is no-self.
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby mydoghasfleas » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:43 am

Thank you for taking the time to consider this question. Your answers are helpful.
User avatar
mydoghasfleas
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby Mkoll » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:36 pm

"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

-"Maggavagga: The Path" (Dhp XX), translated from the Pali by Acharya Buddharakkhita. Access to Insight, 23 April 2012, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html . Retrieved on 9 September 2013.

Nibbana itself is not self. So how much less are conditioned things not self?

:namaste:

James
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby suwapan » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:12 pm

mydoghasfleas wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right board to pose this question but here it is.

I read:
When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity. -- Dhp 279


When we observe anicca dukha anatta with Yonisomnasikara * , we realise that everything around us undergo constant change. We can delay the change but we can't stop it. In realising this, we recognise that we can't stop ourselves from changing. Hence, we are not even in total control of our own body and mind, let alone our loved ones' and pets'. As such, there is no "me, myself and I." There are only Rupa and Nama in this universe. This wisdom is extremely hard to achieve, but when you see the truth, there is no rejoice but sadness. You are now on the path of arahantship.

(* Yonisomnasikara = reasoned attention, systematic attention, analytical thinking, critical thinking, thinking in terms of specific conditionality, thinking by way of causal relations or be way of problem-solving, achievable by learning and practicing insight meditation)


There is also:
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ... AN 5.57


This is Karma (action) and Vipaka (consequence). It emphasises that your actions belong to you, and it's you who will face the consequences whether in this life, next life or countless lives to come.


And:
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" -- SN 22.59


This para is related to the first.

Cheers
suwapan
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby culaavuso » Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:26 pm

mydoghasfleas wrote:Yet AN 5.57 seems to imply that Kamma is self.

Can someone here give me some insight as to how these three excerpts relate to one another?


Even the "I" that AN 5.57 speaks of is not fitting to regard as "my self".

AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta wrote:"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...
"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ...
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."


MN 141: Saccavibhanga Sutta wrote:Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.


SN 22.59: Pañcavaggi Sutta wrote:"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."


SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote:I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.
culaavuso
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is Kamma self?

Postby Ananda26 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:53 pm

mydoghasfleas wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right board to pose this question but here it is.

I read:
When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity. -- Dhp 279

There is also:
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ... AN 5.57

And:
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" -- SN 22.59

Now I know the last excerpt is specifically talking about the five aggregates of clinging. But one of those aggregates is mental formations. Kamma is directly related to mental formations. So it would seem to be saying that Kamma is (also) not self.

Yet AN 5.57 seems to imply that Kamma is self.

Can someone here give me some insight as to how these three excerpts relate to one another?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.


I am owner of my actions, heir to my actions, whatever actions I do good or bad, to that I shall become the heir. Understanding that is helpful for developing responsability about one's actions.

Formations are impermanent. Is what is impermanent happiness or suffering? Suffering. Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be reguarded thus. This is mine, this I am, this is my self? No. Therefore all formations whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior all formations should be reguarded thus this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.
Ananda26
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:41 pm


Return to Classical Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests