Do people who get murdered deserve it?

[tiltbillings]

The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 , refers to this sutta and notes that there is no single fruit from a single cause:
"for here there is no single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above) because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma and so on."

Interesting, but it does not suggest, or state, (in line with the sutta) that kamma is always a factor in what we experience.

[robertk]

yes here is the link again

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... hilit=hell

But how does this relate to the idea that "randomness appeals"?

what I said was that i dont know why randomness appeals to people.
in case there is confusion i am saying that i dont believe in randomness. that article explains how kamma and the other condtions lead to results..

[mikenz66]

Hi Mr Man,

But how does this relate to the idea that "randomness appeals"?

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p265757

... Aside from being born leading to death I don't think there always has to be any further reason for a particular death. The "universe" doesn't arrange things that way. Just bad luck is all....

why does the idea of randomness appeal to so many people?

As Robert observes, it's interesting that often in discussions that relate to the difficult questions around determinism, free will, etc, the idea of randomness ("luck") often arises. Randomness would certainly be an antidote to determinism (assuming one requires an antidote), but randomness is hardly free will either...


Mike

[reflection]

The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 , refers to this sutta and notes that there is no single fruit from a single cause:
"for here there is no single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above) because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma and so on."

Interesting, but it does not suggest, or state, (in line with the sutta) that kamma is always a factor in what we experience.

or that it is the only factor. Kamma is always an indirect factor in our experience, because without kamma no birth, but the thing is people implying everything is kamma. A stone falling down a hill is supposedly due to kamma. But stones also fall when there is no head to hit, so it'd be rather silly for the stones to fall due to kamma alone.

Btw I never said randomness or undetermined. Just not that all has to be due to kamma. I think it is quite obvious certain things will happen also if there is no being involved, if there is no kamma involved. It is just a small step to see that those things can also happen to beings as well. Like the stone falling on your head.

[tiltbillings]

but the thing is people implying everything is kamma. A stone falling down a hill is supposedly due to kamma. But stones also fall when there is no head to hit, so it'd be rather silly for the stones to fall due to kamma alone.

A rock falls, hits a person

Btw I never said randomness or undetermined. Just not that all has to be due to kamma. I think it is quite obvious certain things will happen also if there is no being involved, if there is no kamma involved. It is just a small step to see that those things can also happen to beings as well. Like the stone falling on your head.[/quote]I agree.

[robertk]

hmm maybe i was obtuse earlier

reflectin: A stone falling down a hill is supposedly due to kamma

The texts never suggest that a stone falling down a hill is due to kamma.
maybe you could quote something so we have an idea of where you get that idea from..

[reflection]

Hi Mr Man,

But how does this relate to the idea that "randomness appeals"?

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p265757

... Aside from being born leading to death I don't think there always has to be any further reason for a particular death. The "universe" doesn't arrange things that way. Just bad luck is all....

why does the idea of randomness appeal to so many people?

As Robert observes, it's interesting that often in discussions that relate to the difficult questions around determinism, free will, etc, the idea of randomness ("luck") often arises. Randomness would certainly be an antidote to determinism (assuming one requires an antidote), but randomness is hardly free will either...


Mike

I do belief in randomness by the way, but that doesn't really matter for this discussion. When I mentioned bad luck, I was just talking about being on the wrong place at the wrong time. That could as well be determined. The point is it doesn't all have to be due to kamma (intentional action).

[Mr Man]

Thanks robertk and mikenz66
But don't all these discussions come about because we want to get away from a world that feels random and create some order (through ideas). So I'm not sure if accepting randomness is really appealing to many (although yes it does get offered as an option).

[reflection]

hmm maybe i was obtuse earlier

reflectin: A stone falling down a hill is supposedly due to kamma

The texts never suggest that a stone falling down a hill is due to kamma.
maybe you could quote something so we have an idea of where you get that idea from..

I'm not saying the texts say that. It's an example extrapolated from the statement that being murdered by someone else is (entirely) due to kamma. If you assume that, than you must in my eyes also assume that rocks falling on your head and stuff like that are kamma. Because logically you must then also belief that, for example, being shot but being hit 1cm away from your vital organs (and so surviving) is due to kamma and not due to something else. That's virtually the same as a rock falling just in front of you or just on your head (or toe ) I hope you see the logic.

[reflection]

Thanks robertk and mikenz66
But don't all these discussions come about because we want to get away from a world that feels random and create some order (through ideas). So I'm not sure if accepting randomness is really appealing to many (although yes it does get offered as an option).

I don't think appealing has anything to do with it, indeed. One could just as well ask the question why determinism (or all-is-kamma) is so appealing to people.

[Mr Man]

Thanks robertk and mikenz66
But don't all these discussions come about because we want to get away from a world that feels random and create some order (through ideas). So I'm not sure if accepting randomness is really appealing to many (although yes it does get offered as an option).

I don't think appealing has anything to do with it, indeed. One could just as well ask the question why determinism (or all-is-kamma) is so appealing to people.

Well, I find it easier to understand why determinism or why or a moral order would be appealing. Being in control or being out of control, It's a no-brainer isn't it?

[tiltbillings]

Thanks robertk and mikenz66
But don't all these discussions come about because we want to get away from a world that feels random and create some order (through ideas). So I'm not sure if accepting randomness is really appealing to many (although yes it does get offered as an option).

I don't think appealing has anything to do with it, indeed. One could just as well ask the question why determinism (or all-is-kamma) is so appealing to people.

Well, I find it easier to understand why determinism or why or a moral order would be appealing. Being in control or being out of control, It's a no-brainer isn't it?

But determinism is no more in control than is randomness.

[Mr Man]

But determinism is no more control than is randomness.

Determinism has a sense of order, which I think could be more appealing. Maybe not?

[tiltbillings]

But determinism is no more control than is randomness.

Determinism has a sense of order, which I think could be more appealing. Maybe not?

The individual is out of control over his or her life either way.

[chownah]

The individual is out of control.
chownah