- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Hi everyone, when going about my day i have the following dilemmas and not sure if we would generate kamma for each of the actions:
1) One path is hot and one path is sheltered. To avoid the heat i take the sheltered path 100% of the time. The hot path is slightly shorter.
2) A foul smell enters through the window. I close the window. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore any health problems that could come with the foul smell. I closed the window simply because it smelt unpleasant.
3) I receive broccoli on my plate. Since I find the taste unpleasant i don’t eat it. Again let’s ignore health consequences.
My hypothesis is that all 3 do not generate abhisankhara. I would be able to classify 1) as avoiding dukha vedana since it is a result of avoiding bodily pain, but i am not sure how to classify the other 2. However, I believe they can be done without abhisankhara, ie, an arahant can do all 3 actions, as long as the actions are not done out of lobha dosa or moha. I’m just abit confused if avoiding if unpleasant feelings are part of patigha, in that case, kamma generating.
What are your thoughts?
-
-
What if someone looks away from their abuser because it gives them bad memories? Is that abhisankhara still?
In this case, it is not done out of greed/ hate, but i’m not sure about the ignorance part.
Another angle to look at is fear. Fear that they will be hit again. What can we classify this under?
-
It is good to contemplate such situations. But think through possible scenarios. In particular, you may have gone through such situations in the past. What happened in those situations?
- It would be better to discuss such actual experiences. From a philosophical standpoint, we can make up all kinds of situations, but those may not match/describe what happens in real life.
Think about what happened in an actual case where someone started verbally abusing you. There are many possibilities. (i) One could look away, (ii) One could walk away, (iii) One could try to explain to that person you have done nothing wrong, (iv) One could get confrontational, and the situation can escalate.
It would provide more clarity if you could describe what happened in such cases (even hypothetical cases).
For example, consider the case (i) above.
- X starts verbally abusing Y. Y looks away, but X keeps it up and becomes even more annoying. Doesn’t Y’s mind likely generate anger? At some point, Y may “blow up” and be likely to respond.
- But that is likely only in the case of an average human. If Y is an Arahant, no anger will arise, and he can sit there all day and “take that abuse” without generating any anger.
- If Y is a Sotapanna, anger may arise, and he will think about how to “diffuse the situation.” He may try to explain to X that his accusations do not have a basis. But if X disagrees and continues, Y may walk away from that situation.
The other situation also has many possible outcomes.
- If you can describe a specific situation (how the situation develops), we can discuss that.
- If someone hits you and even you don’t respond, doesn’t anger arise? How long can you take that abuse (which is worse than verbal abuse)?
-
Hi Lal, i haven’t had any physical/ verbal abuse that I can recall in detail. But you’re right in saying that if we have more details in the situation, eg how it arises, what the person thinks, why their thoughts arise this way, it will be much easier to answer!
And it also becomes easier to break down to 1) what a normal person would do, 2) what a sotapanna would do, 3) what an arahant would do to facilitate understanding.
-
In these situations the Buddha’s instructions are all to do with the ‘internal’: remaining unaffected ,having compassion towards the offender/s and radiating Noble Metta, and with that as basis, radiating It to all beings everywhere. MN. 21.
Now you will be taken for a weakling, a coward, for the world will praise its own! (Thag 6.12 : “When you know that the other is angry, you act for the good of both yourself and the other if you are mindful and stay calm. People unfamiliar with the Teaching consider one who heals both oneself and the other to be a fool……remember the Simile of the Saw…remember the simile of the Child’s Flesh” (SN12.63)). Here ‘one who heals both oneself and the other’ refers to the one who sees that there can be no effect without a cause. “This abuse, this pain I am going through, is deserved. But I will not prolong this tit-for-tat into future births by retaliating. It stops here. ‘ Only one needs to see this..
There is also the debate between Sakka and Vepacitti (SN 11.5), with the panel of judges drawn from both camps (devas and asuras) in the end declaring victory to Sakka.
I hope this helps.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.