adding kamma vs. receiving vipaka

Tobias G:

Rephrasing: A was hurt by B in some past life; now A hurts B; in some future life it will be B’s turn to hurt A. Will it ever stop? ….other
than through: “hate does not cease by hate at any time; hate ceases only by love”, bringing to naught both both kamma vipaka and kamma beeja.And
how did the hate arise in the first place, without a cause for it?

1. First of all, Kamma is one of those things that the Buddha categorized as “acinteyya”, not fully graspable by a human other than a Buddha.

2. There are two key factors to be remembered in evaluating how to assess a kamma vipaka:

–which of the dasa akusala is the intention? That is the “cetana” in “cetana ham bhikkhave kamman vadami”.

– then the strength of the kamma vipaka is based on the “level of consciousness” or “qualities” of the living beings affected by that kamma.

-That is the clearest way to analyze any given situation.

3. For example, in the recent second desana on Tilakkhana, I discussed the case of a person killing a bunch of people with a bomb. His intention (cetana) was to kill. Thus the dasa akusala involved is “panatipata”, that of taking a life.

-Now to the second step. He may not even know who was killed. By some coincidence if a parent of the killer was killed by the bomb, then he would have done an anantariya papa kamma. If an Arahant was killed, the same. If a Sotapanna was killed, then it would not be a anantariya kamma, but still equivalent to killing thousands of normal humans.

-So, it is important to understand that “cetana” is which of dasa sakusala are in one’s mind when a kamma is committed. It could be more than one. In the case of the bomber, there is micca ditthi, and likely greed also, in addition to “panatipata”.

-So, it is good to analyze various situations with the above two steps.

4. In the particular example discussed, it is not necessary that person A had to have killed B in a previous life. It is just that person A had a previous kamma vipaka waiting to bear fruit and he himself made the conditions right by going to a bad neighborhood, possibly at a bad time.

Person B could have been just happened to be there with the appropriate mindset to do the killing. It is also possible that there could have been some connection between the two in the past, but that is not necessary.
We all have done innumerable kamma in the deep past and when suitable conditions appear they are brought to fruition.

-But there are some accounts in the Tipitaka, where a person “avenges” a previous death by killing. But in those cases, person A would have killed person B in a previous life by beating him, for example. Then person B would have made a determination, “I will kill you in the future in return”.

-But if person B in the given case kills A by shooting from a distance, A would even not know who killed him. He may die instantly, not even being aware that he was shot by someone. Of course, the “nature” would know (we are all connected), and therefore, that could act as an additional factor.

– This point of “we are all inter-connected” is now proven by quantum mechanics: “Quantum Entanglement – We Are All Connected“.

– This is a key factor in understanding kamma/vipaka, and is my next project. I believe that quantum mechanics can show this at an even deeper level.

Consider now this case:

Kathy is in a bad financial situation. Aware of this, a friend, Tom, offers to lend Kathy money, as much as she needs, even without her having to ask, because Tom sees her need. Kathy is ready to sign a document binding her to return the money, but Tom, wanting to show her that he takes her for a trustworthy person, says her word will do and he hands her the money.

Now suppose Kathy betrays Tom’s trust and does not pay back what she owes him when she later does have the money to do so. How is Tom to take this? :

1) Any wrong-doing here lies with her.
2) It is only my fault. It was I who trusted her word.
3) Since she did not pay it back, it can only be because I was indebted
to her somehow, and this was the way the debt was settled. She has done
no wrong.

That is: 1) and 2) are both undone if 3) applies.

Hi y not,

It is important to understand that only a Buddha will be able to explain fully how a particular kamma and vipaka has unfolded. We can only assume. So here is how I see it.

The fact that Tom wanted to lend money to Kathy means that both of them would have had some transaction prior to this. Chances are that Tom owed something to Kathy (or someone else entirely).

After Kathy borrowed the money she has an obligation to pay it back to Tom. So if she doesn’t this would result in her having to pay him (or someone else) back in the future. She has created a kamma for herself.

So in this case both 1) she has done something wrong and 3) this is the way the debt was settled can both be correct.

Kamma vipaka vaththanthi, vipako kamma sambavo…

Due to a kamma a vipaka is generated. And by facing this vipaka new kamma is generated.