Kamma & Karma.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
Post Reply
ToVincent
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Kamma & Karma.

Post by ToVincent »

First, I will say that I shall not speculate on the jain creed at the time of Buddha, for we have lost the texts of the time, that could be of any help.

What interests me though, is the shift in late Vedism of a karma that goes from a karma meaning "action", to a karma meaning "intention" as in Buddhism.

Was this kamma thing as "intention" an added stuff by the post Buddha Brahmins, from 185 BCE on?
NOTE: The same way that certain people pretend that the same Brahmins would have introduced the notion of the arūpa āyatanani in Buddhism - and that these arūpa āyatanani should be stripped of the Buddhist's Texts).
It sounds pretty illogical that the Brahmins would have conceived something that was directed at getting rid of, what they were ultimately trying to reach.
But these people keep on going with that strange logic.

An other rationale of them, against the arūpa higher āyatanani, is that Buddha would have said in AN 11.9 (Sandha sutta), that one should not meditate on these higher āyatanani— However Buddha also saidthat one should not meditate on what is "sensed by the mano" - And isn't that what it's all about, in the first and second jhana (viz. pīti) ? -
https://rentry.co/m3inp
Should we strip also, the first & second jhana from the Buddhist texts?

Indeed, what the Buddha said, is that we should meditate beyond the aquiescence towards any experiences.
But to get beyond to the finish line, you still have to go through all the stages of the race, don't you?
You have to pass through each of them, and transcend each ofthem (samatikkamma) - don't you?


How much do we have to strip content from the suttas — (apart from being cautious of suttas without parallels - which, by the way shouldn't be stripped off - unless being blatantly oppositive [schism] - in which case, one should just put them at the end of their reading list)?
How much?

-----

In the Rig Veda and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad - from a mere karma by action (usually doing sacrifice):
The immortal self will be reborn in a new body due to its meritorious deeds.
RV. 1.64.30 & 38

We see things slowly changing - the action becomes intention:
What they said was karman, what they praised was karman.
Verily, one becomes good by good action, bad by bad action.
BrArUp 3.2.13

According as one acts, according as one behaves, so does he become.
The doer of good becomes good; the doer of evil becomes evil.
One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action.
Others, however, say that a person consists of desires.
As is his desire, so is his will; as is his will, so is the deed he does - what ever deed he does, that he attains.
BrArUp 4.4.5

The object to which the mano is attached, the subtle self goes to get it with the karma, being attached to it alone.
BrArUp 4.4.6

Obviously, there is no self like this in Buddhism, but a mano + cetana (manosañcetana) towards that object.

This shift from karma as pure action, to a karma as intention, can be seen also in the Chandogya Upaniṣad
As to this,there is this verse:
'If during rites performed for (the fulfilment of certain) wishes, he (the performer) sees a woman in a dream, let him recognise fulfilment (karma) in such a vision in a dream.
ChUp 5.2.8


My question is: "Do we have to strip out this kamma as intention from the Buddhist Texts, because it shows a pretty factual commonality with the Vedic Texts? ".
Was that another attempt from the Brahmins to corrupt the original Buddhist's Texts?
Or is it just that people have a poor knowledge of the Indian philosophy of the time (of which Buddhism was part - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism)?

I'm trying hard.
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by Ceisiwr »

How much do we have to strip content from the suttas
We don’t and it’s quite arrogant to suggest otherwise.
Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.


Visuddhimagga

ToVincent
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:09 pm
How much do we have to strip content from the suttas
We don’t and it’s quite arrogant to suggest otherwise.
Well, tell that to the ones who say so.
Like the ones who say that we should strip the arūpa āyatanani from the Texts — and who, if I follow their logic, would strip also kamma as intention, because it comes from the late Brahmin crowd.

That's might indeed be quite arrogant - but I'm not inclined to diss people — particularly when I just happened to defend them.
Just showing them, their poor logic and knowledge.
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).

santa100
Posts: 4250
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by santa100 »

ToVincent wrote:Was this kamma thing as "intention" an added stuff by the post Buddha Brahmins, from 185 BCE on?
No, it was said by the Buddha right in the suttas:
AN 6.63 wrote:Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

ToVincent
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by ToVincent »

santa100 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:47 pm
ToVincent wrote:Was this kamma thing as "intention" an added stuff by the post Buddha Brahmins, from 185 BCE on?
No, it was said by the Buddha right in the suttas:
AN 6.63 wrote:Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
As I said earlier:
"What interests me though, is the shift in late Vedism of a karma that goes from a karma meaning "action", to a karma meaning "intention", as in Buddhism ."

So, I am glad to see, that you don't think (like I do,) that this kamma as "intention" could have been added later on by the Brahmins.
Note: Some people on this forum (and in a book that they have read - (certainly from another famous "scholar")), think that the Brahmins have added stuff to the suttas later on. I have shown them that they were wrong in their logic, and also in their reading of the suttas.

Therefore we can see that, in the Indian philosophy of the time, there was also some Brahmins that were seeing karma as "intention" - So one does not have necessarily to postulate that kamma as "intention", was an exclusively Buddhist concept; nor that this concept was introduced lately by the Brahmins.
There were indeed many similarities between the Indian philosophy of the time, and Buddha's philosophy. And there were also major differences.
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).

auto
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by auto »

yes,
Why people push away other sects materials what contain same words. I read psychology for middle schoolers, i get out of it more than from budhist Suttas.
I don't understand those who start off with Suttas and just waste time with reading them. This is just birthing robots or zombies who claim they are already dead or have no self.

ToVincent
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Kamma & Karma.

Post by ToVincent »

auto wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:40 pm
yes,
Why people push away other sects materials what contain same words. I read psychology for middle schoolers, i get out of it more than from budhist Suttas.
I don't understand those who start off with Suttas and just waste time with reading them. This is just birthing robots or zombies who claim they are already dead or have no self.
Well, Budhism has intrinsic instances, that makes it stand very much apart from the other Indian philosophies.
You would not mix Pythagoras with Anaximander, although the former borrowed some bits from the latter - would you?
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).

Post Reply