binocular wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:42 am
How do you know that??
I was quoting suttas. The suttas say kamma is intention
(AN 6.63). According the suttas, it appears a person murdered or raped due to the hateful intention of another person rather than due to the intention of the victim. This seems to be why Buddhism teaches people to give up hateful intentions & practise the moral precepts. I have never read in Buddhism that a person is raped or murdered due their own intentions (kamma) alone, as follows:
Through greed a covetous man kills breathing things... through hate a malevolent man kills breathing things... through ignorance a deluded man kills breathing things… https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.66
As for what I personally "know", I have personally not experienced any hardships in life that I cannot identify the exact causes. For example when I five years old, I was getting a thrill from riding my scooter through broken glass, until I cut open my foot in the glass and had to get stitches in the hospital. I think the cause of my cut foot was the broken glass & negligence rather than past life kamma. I cannot recall any hardship in my life where the causes of that hardship is a mystery to me. Similarly, I have posted many causes for why the Rohingya may be persecuted. I think to think that these millions of people all committed a certain past life kamma so to be born in a certain location and then they all get persecuted for living in that location (which is oil & gas deposits) seems rather far fetched & ridiculous; similar to saying all who died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or 9/11 all did a certain past life kamma to be in those locations at those specific times. It starts to sound so absurd & ridiculous that it doesn't sound like the view of a Buddha (Wise One). It sounds like another 9/11 conspiracy theory, such remote control planes, controlled demolition, found passports, false flag to attack Iraq & Muslims, MIC, US made anthrax, Bush claiming to see the 1st plane on TV, high tech caves in Afghanistan, $B$ insurance claim, past life kamma. 9/11 happened due to past life kamma rather than due to Osama Bin Laden living in a cave in Afghanistan
binocular wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:42 am
I'm not going to defend stances you merely imagine I hold.
Did this mean to say: "...not able to defend stances...?
Saengnapha wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:22 am
Aren't the so called 'innocent recipients' experiencing their own ripening kamma? In Theravada, is there a kamma that is synonymous with prarabdha as taught in Vedanta?
Theosophical Society doctrine/dogma tends to view Buddhism in both a non-faith & interfaith manner. It has been quoted clearly on this thread:
1. The Pali suttas literally say there are "innocent" victims (SN 1.22; Iti 89; Dhp 137)
2. The Pali suttas define 'kamma' as 'intention' (AN 6.63).
3. The Pali suttas literally say attributing all fortune & misfortune to past kamma is a heretical doctrine that leaves a person defenseless or unprotected because they will not know what is skillful kamma that leads to protection (AN 3.61).
4. The Pali suttas literally say retribution or retaliation can occur due to present life past kamma. Example, Angulimala (MN 86) & Dhp 133.
Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?" Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I think the view of Binocular
in this case probably falls into the above view (highlighted in red
), which the Buddha
refuted (highlighted in green