Bono (U2) on Grace and Karma

[Vajradhara]

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

Vaj,


Which process gets interrupted? The production of karma or the outflow?

they inter-are with each other so interrupting one aspect interrupts them both. in this case he seems to be indicating the lack of vipaka due to his karma.

I'm not sure what Bono's interests in Buddhism are, if any. There are indications that he is interested in Hinduism, however - both in U2's artistic output and interviews with Bono.

i have no idea about his religious views, other than what we are responding to on this thread, of course. i haven't listened to much of their music for quite awhile but i don't recall many Sanatana Dharma or Vedic themes in their early work.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

I'm reminded of that Buddhist aphorism, 'before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water' ... it's not what you do, it's the reason why you do it?

to a certain extent such an analogy could apply. my understanding of this aphorism is derived mainly from the Blue Cliff Records and, as such, i would suggest that the difference isn't one of what or why but one of perception. we chop wood for fire irrespective of our relative state of Awakening and Liberation and that reason would still be there afterwards but our perceptions of what is taking place have changed.

So that the chance of mitigation exists in Karma suggests the idea of grace or mercy? A dimension which, in a Personal God paradigm, would be in the gift of the Deity.

i'm not so sure that it does. the ability to mitigate ones vipaka is directly due to their own actions, no other being can mitigate ones vipaka and as such the ideas of grace and mercy, being wholly other, do not seem to apply. that is not to say that the various deities and such do not exhibit compassionate and mercifiul qualities, many of them do.

the Suttas indicate that the Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is compassionate and merciful for it allows beings the opportunity to Awaken and attain the Other Shore which seems to be rather different than the idea of a being interceeding in our destiny, so to speak.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Actionlessness ----> fruitless karma. This would likely be relevant to maintaining/elaborating the effects of past volitional actions and also to generating new karma.

i confess that i don't know this concept. Karma is intentional actions, thoughts and words. unintentional actions, thoughts and words are not karma.

even Buddhas generate karma and vipaka though it is of a different nature than what other beings typically generate.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

unintentional actions, thoughts and words are not karma.

I would respond that negligence is not always consciously intentional but neverthless has karmic significance. I would dare say that negligence can be a bigger factor in determining one's karmic destiny than deliberate and consciously planned individual actions. Besides, many deliberate actions are not fully "intentional" either, being influenced by unconscious motives.

even Buddhas generate karma and vipaka though it is of a different nature than what other beings typically generate.

Namaste Vaj,

I was talking with someone who has been teaching Buddhism for 30+ years who assured it me it was perfectly ok for me to wander from one incomprehensible Buddhist teaching to another without mitigating my confusion.

Functional (Kriya or in Pali Kiriya). This type of consciousness is neither kamma nor kamma resultant. It involves activity yet this activity is not kammically determinate and thus not capable of producing kammic results. It is used in the sense of ineffective action whereas kamma is effective. Good deeds of Buddhas and Arhants ...do not accumulate Kamma as they have gone beyond both good and evil.
​

That's from an exam on Theravada Buddhism.
http://stylomilo.com/dhamma/wp-admin/downloads/YMBAJnr1/Notes/Abhi/Consciousness(Citta).pdf

 

[seattlegal]

I would respond that negligence is not always consciously intentional but neverthless has karmic significance. I would dare say that negligence can be a bigger factor in determining one's karmic destiny than deliberate and consciously planned individual actions. Besides, many deliberate actions are not fully "intentional" either, being influenced by unconscious motives.


Namaste Vaj,

I was talking with someone who has been teaching Buddhism for 30+ years who assured it me it was perfectly ok for me to wander from one incomprehensible Buddhist teaching to another without mitigating my confusion.

Functional (Kriya or in Pali Kiriya). This type of consciousness is neither kamma nor kamma resultant. It involves activity yet this activity is not kammically determinate and thus not capable of producing kammic results. It is used in the sense of ineffective action whereas kamma is effective. Good deeds of Buddhas and Arhants ...do not accumulate Kamma as they have gone beyond both good and evil.
​

That's from an exam on Theravada Buddhism.
http://stylomilo.com/dhamma/wp-admin/downloads/YMBAJnr1/Notes/Abhi/Consciousness(Citta).pdf

Many are quite uncomfortable with ambiguity, while others are not. That's OK...

 

[seattlegal]

Many are quite uncomfortable with ambiguity, while others are not. That's OK...

 

[Netti-Netti]

Karma controversies date back to the First Buddhist Council (300 BCE). I'm told the orthodox view articulated by the First Council is that Arhants do not accumulate or add karma. If an Arhant is capable of this, then it might not be too great a leap to suggest that a Buddha would be capable of this, too.

I'd be interested to get detail on a later development that overturned or replaced the First Council's orthodox view or otherwise nullified the First Council's positions.

Frankly, I've been finding it increasingly tedious to have research all these points from scratch when I should be able to depend on resident Buddhists to at least meet me half way. Generally speaking, I see very little effort to educate on the part of resident Buddhists. To assert doctrinal positions without even citing scripture or commentaries is just too loosy for me. I have some tolerance for ambiguity, but that's not the issue. In my opinion, it is disrespectful to Buddhism as well as anyone interested in learning about it to assert doctrine without citing any.

In another thread, my request for a definition of BuddhaDharma was simply side stepped. I can't rationalize the time to pose questions if no one takes them seriously enough to respond.

I'm done here.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

I would respond that negligence is not always consciously intentional but neverthless has karmic significance. I would dare say that negligence can be a bigger factor in determining one's karmic destiny than deliberate and consciously planned individual actions. Besides, many deliberate actions are not fully "intentional" either, being influenced by unconscious motives.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta

negligence would seem to be an intentional action, thought or word if i'm understanding how you mean the term in this case. there are certainly many factors which go into a beings thoughts, words or deeds and ones unconscious motives are generally the vipaka of previous karma.

Namaste Vaj,

I was talking with someone who has been teaching Buddhism for 30+ years who assured it me it was perfectly ok for me to wander from one incomprehensible Buddhist teaching to another without mitigating my confusion.

Functional (Kriya or in Pali Kiriya). This type of consciousness is neither kamma nor kamma resultant. It involves activity yet this activity is not kammically determinate and thus not capable of producing kammic results. It is used in the sense of ineffective action whereas kamma is effective. Good deeds of Buddhas and Arhants ...do not accumulate Kamma as they have gone beyond both good and evil.
​

That's from an exam on Theravada Buddhism.
http://stylomilo.com/dhamma/wp-admin/downloads/YMBAJnr1/Notes/Abhi/Consciousness(Citta).pdf

indeed... they generate kamma but they do not accumulate it due to the nature of the consciousness at work. i found it quite interesting the first time that i spent time with this teaching.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.



"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta

negligence would seem to be an intentional action

I see it that way too. Inaction may not always leave as vivid an imprint - or the response-outcome contingency may not be as obvious - as in the case of deliberate and planned action. But inaction has results, too.

Thanks for the link.