I am struggling a little bit. I feel the people who use Abhidhamma systematics tend to see it this way: “All that we are experiencing now are just vipaka of kamma performed deep in our past or in this very lifetime”.
These are the words of Johnny_Lim in his last reply.
My reference is the sutta’s. In some sutta’s (i know four) kamma is listed as just 1 of the 8 possible causes for pains (milindapanha), illnesses, discomfort and bad feelings.
In Milindapanha is it said in this way:
-“There are eight causes by which sufferings arise, by which many beings suffer pain. And what are the eight? Superabundance of wind, and of bile, and of phlegm, the union of these humours, variations in temperature,
the avoiding of dissimilarities, external agency, and Karma.
These list can be found in other sutta’s too. So it is not incidental. I mentioned these other sutta’s earlier in this discussion.
Nagasena in Milindapanha is also quit clear; “And therein whosoever maintains that it is Karma that injures beings, and besides it there is no other reason for pain, his proposition is false.’
So, from these words, there seems no reason to belief that all pain (or sufferings) is imparted bad kamma.
Nagasena also says: “So what arises as the fruit of Karma is much less than that which arises from other causes. And the ignorant go too far when they say that every pain is produced as the fruit of Karma.
Nagasena also denies that the pains of the Buddha were kamma-vipaka.
So, in sutta’s it is effectively denied that all pains, illnesses, bad feelings, distress (experiences) is due to (or fruit of) kamma. Apparantly the Buddha did not want us to belief that all we experience is due to our kamma. At least 7 other causes are transmitted.
I know i repeat a lot, but that is mainly because i feel you do not reflect upon the above information from the sutta’s.
At the moment (maybe i have to change my opinion in the future) i sense there is something wrong in the Abhidhamma systematics that every experience comes to us as a kamma-vipaka. The sutta’s do not seem to use this systematics.
I understand, when one uses this systematics, ofcourse_THEN_i understand Johnny_Lin words, but i feel this is not supported in the sutta-pitaka, at least not in those above mentioned.
I would apreciate it when you both (of others) comment on the information from the sutta’s.
kind regards,
Siebe