Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

In SN 22.79 we have this:

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? 'They construct the conditioned,' bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form..."

And likewise for the other aggregates. And form (as with the other aggregates) is described elsewhere (as in SN 22.48) as ALL form, near or far, etc.

So does that mean that all experience for a being is generated by their own volitional formations and that is all they experience?

Or are other beings excluded from this and their forms are generated by themselves. Likewise for houses, rocks etc. Is it many beings generating formations that intermingle with others formations? or is it that one being generates 100% of their own experience, even the other beings that they interact with?

Please provide sutta support for your answer :)
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by chownah »

Beings don't generate anything.
chownah
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by Saengnapha »

There is no personalization of experience. No ownership. Volitions are a process not a someone.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

chownah wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:25 am Beings don't generate anything.
chownah
""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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

Call it what you want, kamma is born of a being and it could be said that to be born is to be generated. This kamma is linked to volitional formations which form forms, perceptions etc. which are then experienced by the being that gave birth to the kamma that caused the volitional formations.

The question, then, is can a being experience anything but their own kamma caused volitional formations? Or do beings experience their own volitional formations and also others volitional formations?

For example when a being meets another being in a forest, is there only one being's volitional formations and the other being and the forest was born from the first beings kamma? Or are there two beings and both of their volitional formations are intermingled in the form of the forest, while their own bodies are the result of their own kamma and volitional formations?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:49 am There is no personalization of experience. No ownership. Volitions are a process not a someone.
For the Dhamma to be understood the Buddha did put things in terms of ownership. As I posted above:

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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

Further:

"And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result." -AN 4.235

So yes, there is at least provisional ownership of kamma and therefore of the volitional formations that result from that kamma. These are also said to be "experienced" as in the sutta above. So the suttas speak of experience and of ownership of kamma and kamma is linked to volitional formations as they are the result of kamma. The question is, do beings experience each other's volitional formations in a shared experience or are they in isolation, experiencing only their own?
Last edited by zan on Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by Saengnapha »

zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 am
Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:49 am There is no personalization of experience. No ownership. Volitions are a process not a someone.
For the Dhamma to be understood the Buddha did put things in terms of ownership. As I posted above:

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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

So yes, there is at least provisional ownership of kamma and therefore of the volitional formations that result from that kamma. The question is, do beings experience each other's volitional formations in a shared experience or are they in isolation, experiencing only their own?
If something is provisional, it is not factual, it is temporary. All of it is shared through the inherited cultures which is our reality. Personalization of that is a mistake. Ownership means that experience is what you are. You are not something other than that, no generator, no doer.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:11 am
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 am
Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:49 am There is no personalization of experience. No ownership. Volitions are a process not a someone.
For the Dhamma to be understood the Buddha did put things in terms of ownership. As I posted above:

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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

So yes, there is at least provisional ownership of kamma and therefore of the volitional formations that result from that kamma. The question is, do beings experience each other's volitional formations in a shared experience or are they in isolation, experiencing only their own?
If something is provisional, it is not factual, it is temporary. All of it is shared through the inherited cultures which is our reality. Personalization of that is a mistake. Ownership means that experience is what you are. You are not something other than that, no generator, no doer.
Now you're arguing with the way the Buddha worded his own teachings. The Buddha said "owner" and "he experiences". I said "provisional", not the Buddha.

So, using the wording that the Buddha used: if a being experiences the volitional formations that are the result of his own kamma, does he experience this in isolation and all other beings he meets are actually illusions so to speak, forms created by his own volitional formations but not forms that themselves give birth to kamma that results in it's own volitional formations, or are there other beings he can meet that are not solely the result of his kammically resultant volitional formations and they also give birth to kamma that results in volitional formations and all beings kamma resultant volitional formations intermingle?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by Saengnapha »

zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:16 am
Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:11 am
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 am

For the Dhamma to be understood the Buddha did put things in terms of ownership. As I posted above:

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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

So yes, there is at least provisional ownership of kamma and therefore of the volitional formations that result from that kamma. The question is, do beings experience each other's volitional formations in a shared experience or are they in isolation, experiencing only their own?
If something is provisional, it is not factual, it is temporary. All of it is shared through the inherited cultures which is our reality. Personalization of that is a mistake. Ownership means that experience is what you are. You are not something other than that, no generator, no doer.
Now you're arguing with the way the Buddha worded his own teachings. The Buddha said "owner" and "he experiences". I said "provisional", not the Buddha.

So, if a being experiences the volitional formations that are the result of his own kamma, does he experience this in isolation and all other beings he meets are actually illusions so to speak, forms created by his own volitional formations but not forms that themselves give birth to kamma that results in it's own volitional formations, or are there other beings he can meet that are not solely the result of his kammically resultant volitional formations and all beings kamma resultant volitional formations intermingle?
Do you think there is a difference between your experience and my experience essentially? It is the same reality, a conditioned one. Owning is a figure of speech. All these ways of looking at it are beside the point and only serve to separate you from reality as if you were apart from your experience. You are the experience, not the observer of it. The observer is part of the experience, all of it conditioned.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

For those that will pick apart my wording and use it to create the idea that, since there are no "selves" then the question is invalid, perhaps a re wording would help?

How about:

If a body is giving birth to kamma and this kamma results in volitional formations, does that body interact with only the volitional formations that are the result of the kamma that it gave birth to in the form of objects and other bodies that themselves are resultant of this kamma and that those resultant bodies do not give birth to their own kamma which results in their own volitional formations and so 100 percent of the volitional formations that a body may interact with will be the result of solely their own kamma?

Or does a body that gives birth to kamma interact with other bodies that give birth to kamma and the bodies kamma resultant volitional formations intermingle?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:24 am
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:16 am
Saengnapha wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:11 am
If something is provisional, it is not factual, it is temporary. All of it is shared through the inherited cultures which is our reality. Personalization of that is a mistake. Ownership means that experience is what you are. You are not something other than that, no generator, no doer.
Now you're arguing with the way the Buddha worded his own teachings. The Buddha said "owner" and "he experiences". I said "provisional", not the Buddha.

So, if a being experiences the volitional formations that are the result of his own kamma, does he experience this in isolation and all other beings he meets are actually illusions so to speak, forms created by his own volitional formations but not forms that themselves give birth to kamma that results in it's own volitional formations, or are there other beings he can meet that are not solely the result of his kammically resultant volitional formations and all beings kamma resultant volitional formations intermingle?
Do you think there is a difference between your experience and my experience essentially? It is the same reality, a conditioned one. Owning is a figure of speech. All these ways of looking at it are beside the point and only serve to separate you from reality as if you were apart from your experience. You are the experience, not the observer of it. The observer is part of the experience, all of it conditioned.

Okay then how about this: Do you generate kamma which results in volitional formations? Or do you generate no kamma and therefore no volitional formations result from you?

Edit: I should add that only enlightened ones generate no kamma but even they experience the volitional formations that are the result of their past kamma. So do you interact with (or experience or however you want to word it), at least the volitional formations which are the result of your own past kamma?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by DooDoot »

zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:59 am""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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 quote is on the level of conventional language. It appears not relevant to the ultimate reality of generation via Dependent Origination nor relevant to the sankhara quote from SN 22.79.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pm In SN 22.79 we have this:

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? 'They construct the conditioned,' bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form..."
The above is merely a translation. The word "volitional" ("cetana") actually does not exist in the Pali.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmAnd likewise for the other aggregates. And form (as with the other aggregates) is described elsewhere (as in SN 22.48) as ALL form, near or far, etc.

So does that mean that all experience for a being is generated by their own volitional formations and that is all they experience?
I doubt the quote from SN 22.79 is saying what you are inferring. The quote from SN 22.79 appears to be saying that sankhara (thinking) creates certain ideas or views about the other aggregates.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmSo does that mean that all experience for a being is generated by their own volitional formations and that is all they experience?
The suttas appear to say the idea of "a being" ("satta") is itself a formation (sankhara); that sankhara creates the idea of "a being" rather than a being volitionally generates sankhara & other aggregates . It would seem to believe "a being" generates the aggregates via volition is the same as the belief in an anthropomorphic god that creates the world via its will; as depicted at the start of the Jewish Bible.
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:59 am""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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
Yes, once the idea or view of "a being" arises, it certainly appears to generate kamma (AN 3.76). But the idea of "a being" appears to not generate the aggregates, per your personal interpretation of SN 22.79.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmPlease provide sutta support for your answer
SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 (plus MN 98). DYOR. :)
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmCall it what you want, kamma is born of a being and it could be said that to be born is to be generated. This kamma is linked to volitional formations which form forms, perceptions etc. which are then experienced by the being that gave birth to the kamma that caused the volitional formations.
Na. "A being" or a "who" does not appear to generate primal conscious experience. Refer to SN 12.12.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmFor example when a being meets another being in a forest, is there only one being's volitional formations and the other being and the forest was born from the first beings kamma? Or are there two beings and both of their volitional formations are intermingled in the form of the forest, while their own bodies are the result of their own kamma and volitional formations?
In the forest, there appears to be one group (kaya) of five aggregates meeting an external mind & body (nama-rupa). Refer to SN 12.19. Also, I suggest to abandon this obsession with "volitional". We can't always rely on what we read in books or on the internet. This obsession with "volition" is generating a doctrine of deification. In the suttas below, "volition" appears to come into play in the middle of the mental arising & kamma appears to come into play near the end. Lots is going on before "volition".
The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect...

"Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas...

"Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness...

"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...

"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...

"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...

"Intention (volition) for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...

"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...

"Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...

"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.

Kāmadhātuṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā, kāmasaññaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaṅkappo, kāmasaṅkappaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmacchando, kāmacchandaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariḷāho, kāmapariḷāhaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariyesanā.

An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

Kāmapariyesanaṃ, bhikkhave, pariyesamāno assutavā puthujjano tīhi ṭhānehi micchā paṭipajjati—kāyena, vācāya, manasā.

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by justindesilva »

chownah wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:25 am Beings don't generate anything.
chownah
Could I but say that beings generate Kamma.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by zan »

DooDoot wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:10 am
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:59 am""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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 quote is on the level of conventional language. It appears not relevant to the ultimate reality of generation via Dependent Origination nor relevant to the sankhara quote from SN 22.79.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pm In SN 22.79 we have this:

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? 'They construct the conditioned,' bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form..."
The above is merely a translation. The word "volitional" ("cetana") actually does not exist in the Pali.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmAnd likewise for the other aggregates. And form (as with the other aggregates) is described elsewhere (as in SN 22.48) as ALL form, near or far, etc.

So does that mean that all experience for a being is generated by their own volitional formations and that is all they experience?
I doubt the quote from SN 22.79 is saying what you are inferring. The quote from SN 22.79 appears to be saying that sankhara (thinking) creates certain ideas or views about the other aggregates.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmSo does that mean that all experience for a being is generated by their own volitional formations and that is all they experience?
The suttas appear to say the idea of "a being" ("satta") is itself a formation (sankhara); that sankhara creates the idea of "a being" rather than a being volitionally generates sankhara & other aggregates . It would seem to believe "a being" generates the aggregates via volition is the same as the belief in an anthropomorphic god that creates the world via its will; as depicted at the start of the Jewish Bible.
zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:59 am""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), 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
Yes, once the idea or view of "a being" arises, it certainly appears to generate kamma (AN 3.76). But the idea of "a being" appears to not generate the aggregates, per your personal interpretation of SN 22.79.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmPlease provide sutta support for your answer
SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 (plus MN 98). DYOR. :)
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmCall it what you want, kamma is born of a being and it could be said that to be born is to be generated. This kamma is linked to volitional formations which form forms, perceptions etc. which are then experienced by the being that gave birth to the kamma that caused the volitional formations.
Na. "A being" or a "who" does not appear to generate primal conscious experience. Refer to SN 12.12.
zan wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pmFor example when a being meets another being in a forest, is there only one being's volitional formations and the other being and the forest was born from the first beings kamma? Or are there two beings and both of their volitional formations are intermingled in the form of the forest, while their own bodies are the result of their own kamma and volitional formations?
In the forest, there appears to be one group (kaya) of five aggregates meeting an external mind & body (nama-rupa). Refer to SN 12.19. Also, I suggest to abandon this obsession with "volitional". We can't always rely on what we read in books or on the internet. This obsession with "volition" is generating a doctrine of deification. In the suttas below, "volition" appears to come into play in the middle of the mental arising & kamma appears to come into play near the end. Lots is going on before "volition".
The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect...

"Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas...

"Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness...

"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...

"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...

"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...

"Intention (volition) for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...

"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...

"Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...

"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.

Kāmadhātuṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā, kāmasaññaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaṅkappo, kāmasaṅkappaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmacchando, kāmacchandaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariḷāho, kāmapariḷāhaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariyesanā.

An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

Kāmapariyesanaṃ, bhikkhave, pariyesamāno assutavā puthujjano tīhi ṭhānehi micchā paṭipajjati—kāyena, vācāya, manasā.

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato
Thank you. Let me rephrase the question: is kamma generated by more than one body (sentient being, nama rupa, form joined with consciousness, etc.) at a time and the results intermingle? or does only one body generate kamma and, for that body, all other bodies do not because they are the same as kammically resultant rocks or air and so cannot generate their own kamma? Hence each body is it's own experience and no bodies ever intermingle with any other bodies that generate kamma?

As far as I can tell all sentient beings except arahants generate kamma but the above sutta seems to imply that one being may generate all their own experiences and therefore also other beings which would mean those generated beings would not themselves generate kamma. Clearly this is incorrect but no one has given me a clear and straight answer yet like: no a being does not generate 100% of their own experience. Here's sutta quotes showing that beings share kammic experience and do not experience 100% their own kamma only.

Or: yes beings only experience their own kamma. Here's a sutta..."

I think I already understand that a being generates kamma and experiences it's resulsts. All I want to know is does a being also experience the results of other beings kamma and interact with these other beings that also produce kamma? For example could being 1 see being 2 reap the benefits of their own good kamma as they watch them win the lottery? Or would being 1 only be seeing their own kamma and the being 2 they view does not actually produce or inherit kamma because they are like a kammically resultant rock?

I guess I worded it poorly! It doesn't seem like I'll ever be able to word this question satisfactorily.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by DooDoot »

zan wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:44 pmThank you. Let me rephrase the question: is kamma generated by more than one body (sentient being, nama rupa, form joined with consciousness, etc.)
I suppose I jumped in at the deep end but "a being" ("satta"), according to the explanations in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10, does not appear to be the aggregates. I did suggest to DYOR on SN 23.2 and SN 5.10.
or does only one body generate kamma
The opening verse of the Dhammapada says the mind (mano) creates kamma (rather than the body).
As far as I can tell all sentient beings except arahants generate kamma
Maybe But my impression is kamma is volitional action rather than magically conjuring up aggregates like a magician. Kamma is you crave for the best seat on a bus but due to not getting what you want you suffer. Kamma seems to be doing good leads to heaven & doing bad leads to hell.
but the above sutta seems to imply that one being may generate all their own experiences and therefore also other beings which would mean those generated beings would not themselves generate kamma.
No. SN 22.79 merely seems to say sankhara aggregate or **THINKING** proliferates ideas or views about the aggregates.
Clearly this is incorrect but no one has given me a clear and straight answer yet like: no a being does not generate 100% of their own experience. Here's sutta quotes showing that beings share kammic experience and do not experience 100% their own kamma only.
"Experience" seems unrelated to kamma. I already suggested you are creating ideas that people are God or Gods. Kamma appears to be a moral principle. Murder, steal, etc, end up in prison & in hell. Give to charity and end up in heaven.
I think I already understand that a being generates kamma and experiences it's results.
Yes, experiences "results", which are results of happiness (human, heaven) and unhappiness & torment (hell, hungry ghost, animal realms).
All I want to know is does a being also experience the results of other beings kamma and interact with these other beings that also produce kamma? For example could being 1 see being 2 reap the benefits of their own good kamma as they watch them win the lottery?
Imo, winning the lottery is mere luck rather than kamma.
Or would being 1 only be seeing their own kamma and the being 2 they view does not actually produce or inherit kamma because they are like a kammically resultant rock?
If being 1 is happy for being 2 winning the lottery (rather than jealous) that is good kamma.

:heart: Good night. Its late! Bad karma. :zzz:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Does a being generate 100% of their own experience?

Post by User1249x »

see if you can find some answers in these passages;

Dhammapada 1&2 with many translations
1. Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti cakkaṃ'va vahato padaṃ.
2. Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce pasannena bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti chāyā'va anapāyinī.

1. Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti cakkaṃ'va vahato padaṃ.
2. Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce pasannena bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti chāyā'va anapāyinī.
Image
mn109
"But in what, lord, are these five clinging-aggregates rooted?"

"Monk, these five clinging-aggregates are rooted in desire."
mn137

(THE ELEMENTS)

4. “But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in the elements?”

“There are, Ānanda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; the ear element, the sound element, the ear-consciousness element; the nose element, the odor element, the nose-consciousness element; the tongue element, the flavor element, the tongue-consciousness element; the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”

5. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”
6. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the pleasure element, the pain element, the joy element, the grief element, the equanimity element, and the ignorance element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”

7. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”

8. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these three elements: the sense-sphere element, the fine-material element, and the immaterial element. When he knows and sees these three elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”

9. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”
Post Reply