There are two different explanations about kammapatha.
2. Venerable Waharaka Thero’s explanation
I believe that the traditional view of kammapatha cannot be considered Buddha Dhamma.
- First reason: This explanation cannot be found within the Tipitaka and is only seen in Buddhaghosa’s commentaries. This point was sufficiently explained in #47813.
- Second reason: The traditional view presents different conditions for each akusala kamma, with the number of conditions varying—some having four, some three, and others two. This gives the impression of a lack of consistency required for a natural law to be valid.
- Third reason: In the traditional view, the conditions for explaining panatipata sometimes consist solely of mano sankhara and not kaya sankhara. This is inconsistent with the fact that the first three of the panca sila correspond to akusala committed by kaya sankhara, the fourth by vaci sankhara, and the fifth by mano sankhara. I think this issue arises when mano sankhara is merely regarded as “intentional thought.” Therefore, this analysis suggests mano sankhara falls within our responsibility of reaction. So I think it is incompatible with Buddha Dhamma.
- Finally, the fourth reason: Waharaka Thero does not mention the conditions of the traditional view when explaining kammapatha. I believe this is also important.
I understand that this issue is an acinteyya topic. However, this alone does not dispel the impression that the traditional view of kammapatha seems somewhat incongruent to me. I need further explanation as to why the traditional view can be considered Buddha Dhamma. Could you provide an answer to this issue?