Anantariya Kamma, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicides

Welcome! Forums Kamma and Kamma Vipāka Anantariya Kamma, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicides

Viewing 53 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #16077
      firewns
      Participant

      I hesitated quite a bit about posting this, because anantariya akusala kamma are such weighty negative kamma, and in our cultures, it is possible that some of us may have committed such acts without realizing it. I did not want to burden anyone reading this post with guilt, depression, fear or anger if they had ever participated in mercy killings, assisted suicides or euthanasia, but I felt that the post could have infinite benefit for those who may one day encounter such situations and need to make an informed choice. If even one reader could avoid spending incalculable aeons in niraya due to this post, then it would definitely have been infinitely worth it (pardon my repeated use of the word ‘infinite’).

      How many of us have personally encountered a situation whereby we must choose between continuing or discontinuing life support for parents who are brain-dead or would take a miracle to regain consciousness? Or have we heard of those who must undergo the very same ordeal?

      What about cases whereby severely or terminally ill and distressed parents beg their children to end their lives which are full of stigma, pain and suffering?

      Or doctors who must choose whether or not to end the life of a comatose person with no known relatives, who might be an arahant unbeknownst to them?

      Would any of these situations lead to anantariya akusala kamma?

      How would sotapannas and other Ariyas in this forum handle such situations? I believe we can learn much from their decisions, since I sincerely believe that they are not capable of committing apayagami kamma, and would probably handle the situations well.

      But what if, despite everyone’s best wishes, finances became insufficient to continue life-support or other treatments? Would insufficient resources help to mitigate the weighty negative kamma of letting one’s parents or a possible arahant die?

      For those who have already let their parents die in such ways, is there any way to lessen their negative kamma? I think anantariya kamma are the hardest to mitigate, if it is at all possible to do so. Furthermore, based on what I know, anantariya akusala kamma can even counteract completely anantariya kusala kamma, such as cultivating the anariya jhanas prior to committing those apayagami acts.

      Maybe offerings could be made to these departed people, so as to lessen any anantariya kamma? Or could merits be accrued, and then be transferred to these departed people by pattidana, again lessening the effects of anantariya kamma?

      Personally I would prefer to let these people live as long as possible. Perhaps they could listen to recorded desanas or chantings by Ariyas, to move them one step nearer to nibbana, even as they lay wasting away or unconscious (their gandhaba could be hovering nearby, able to receive the wisdom of such teachings and chantings?) After all, the precious life and potential for achieving nibbana for a human cannot be overestimated.

      I would be eager to hear your views. Thank you very much for your time and may you accrue much merit for your willingness and sincerity to share.

    • #16079
      firewns
      Participant

      On the flip side, could the listeners of the recorded desanas and chantings start to develop aversion towards these holy teachings and chantings, especially if they were utterly devoted to other religions? Would they then start the transition to a hell bhava, despite these recorded sounds ironically having the potential to help them?

      • #16086
        Uyap
        Participant

        imo, yes it will generate bad karma due to ignorance. Karma is nature law for all being, which is beyond one religion, belief, faith, etc.

        Uyap.

    • #16080
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Hi,

      “(their gandhaba could be hovering nearby, able to receive the wisdom of such teachings and chantings?) ” Curious, in the Pali Text Society Dictionnary one of the possible translations for gandhaba is angel.

      “anantariya akusala kamma” : to me this is about the difference between misdeeds consciously perpetrated and not consciously perpetrated.
      If one perpetrates a misdeed whilst being aware of Buddha Dhamma,then the kammic debt will be heavier ?

      • #16082
        firewns
        Participant

        Hi,

        Embodied said: If one perpetrates a misdeed whilst being aware of Buddha Dhamma,then the kammic debt will be heavier ?

        From what I have learnt here, if one commits akusala kamma that is not anantariya, its impact will be lessened if one is aware of Buddha Dharma, specifically being aware that the act one is committing is akusala and will bring bad results. This is due to the javana citta of the perpetrator being weaker as a result of a greater reluctance to carry out the act (as they are aware of the consequences), and as such the kammic effects would not be as negative.

        This also works the other way with kusala kamma, I think. If one commits a kusala kamma while knowing Buddha Dharma, specifically that the act one is committing is kusala and will bring good results, its vipaka would be increased due to a greater enthusiasm to carry out the act.

        However, I am not sure that the vipaka of anantariya akusala kamma can be lessened by one knowing the Buddha Dharma, as such kamma are extremely weighty.

        Does anyone have any further comments on this?

    • #16084
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Exactly Firewens. I’ll explain again. If someone that is an adept of Buddha Dhamma perpetrates misdeeds whilst being conscious that he/she is perpetrating misdeeds, then is kamma will get heavier than the kamma of someone that isn’t an adept of Buddha Dhamma and isn’t aware that (he/she) is doing misdeeds ?

    • #16085
      Uyap
      Participant

      “Punnābhi sankhāra, apunnābhi sankhāra, ānenjābhi sankhāra ayan vuccathi avijjā paccayā sankhāra“.
      When deeds are done to live in this world, one has to do sankhāra. They become abhisankhāra when those are done with greed, hate, and/or ignorance

      my 2 cents,

      if the sankhara, is not contain greed, hate & ignorance intention then it can not become abhisankhara.
      Ie. end arahat life but without greed, hate & ignorance intention, then it can not become anantariya akusala kamma.
      However I think it is almost impossible 100% free from greed, hate & ignorance.

      Uyap

    • #16088
      y not
      Participant

      firewns writes:

      “.. if one commits akusala kamma that is not anantariya, its impact will be lessened if one is aware of Buddha Dharma, specifically being aware that the act one is committing is akusala and will bring bad results. This is due to the javana citta of the perpetrator being weaker as a result of a greater RELUCTANCE to carry out the act (as they are aware of the consequences), and as such the kammic effects would not be as negative.” The word RELUCTANCE given emphasis by capital letters by myself.

      I have asked a question very similar in content in the Sotapanna forum because the answer has become relevant to me. I reproduce it to spare participants here the trouble of looking it up:</h1>

      Does A Sotāpanna Have Perfect Sila?

      I am first quoting and then addressing Lal:

      ‘Anyway, this is the basic idea. As one makes progress on the Ariya Path, one is AUTOMATICALLY prevented from doing dasa akusala, first at strong levels (capable of leading to births in the apayas) at the Sotapanna stage;
      ‘Of course, one MUST forcefully stay away from any dasa akusala when one realizes one is about to do one. If one realizes that ONE JUST DID SUCH AN ACT, one must make a determination to avoid it next time.’ Your post, April 22, #5

      What of the kamma vipaka generated by akusala 1) done BEFORE setting out on the Path and 2)by the ones while on the Path? Will that determination to avoid it in the future be in itself of any direct consequence in preventing it coming to the fore at the cuti-patisandhi moment? How is that to be prevented in both cases ? Is frequent Ariya Metta Bhavana, or anything else, advised?

      Here I am reminded of the instance where Angulimala had killed a thousand people, yet still attained Arahanthood…and here an ANATARIYA kamma had been committed, not a mere akusala kamma
      ==============================================
      I am waiting for an answer

      y not

    • #16089
      firewns
      Participant

      y not said: ‘Here I am reminded of the instance where Angulimala had killed a thousand people, yet still attained Arahanthood.’

      Although Angulimala had killed a thousand people, yet even that was in no way as potent as an anantariya kamma. Buddha himself personally travelled to stop Angulimala from killing his mother which is an anantariya kamma. If Buddha had not intervened in a timely manner, I think Angulimala would most probably not be able to attain arahanthood after killing his mother, as his mind would be too agitated to realize the fruit and path of arahanthood, and he would be destined for niraya (though out of compassion for those who have committed anantariya akusala kamma in this life, I very much hope that they can do something to lessen any negative results).

      So potent is the effect of anantariya kamma that we need to find out as much about it as we can, in my opinion.

    • #16090
      y not
      Participant

      firewns:

      True. ‘and here an ANANTARIYA kamma had been committed, not a mere akusala kamma’ My slip there. Thank you.

      However my question lies in the para before that (the first) and that has to do with akusala kamma and though the term in its wider sense would also include anantariya kamma, my reference was to dasa akusala at normal levels.

      ‘Thank you very much for your time and may you accrue much merit for your willingness and sincerity to share.’ I reciprocate, unable myself to put it better than this.

      y not

    • #16091
      firewns
      Participant

      Of course, I think the Buddha did say that other than a Buddha, the complete laws of kamma could not be entirely comprehended by anyone else.

      Yet it would be good for most of us to listen to how ariyas in this forum would handle such situations. We should be able to look towards them as exemplars of moral behaviour, as they are immune to committing anantariya kamma.

      I believe with their advice, we would be made wiser. This would be really important in an age where technology has become so much more advanced since the time of Gotama Buddha, which did not have any life-support technologies, I think, to prolong the lives of those severely ill or supposedly ‘brain-dead’.

    • #16092
      firewns
      Participant

      It seems to me that the Buddha frequently provided advice or established new rules of conduct on certain more unusual matters only after certain disputes, complaints or questions were brought to his attention, e.g. establishing the rule about bikkhhus being allowed to look after their parents after it was brought to the Buddha’s attention about a bikkhhu giving food from his alms-bowl to his beggar parents.

      If the Buddha were alive today and posed this question, I wonder how He would exhort his followers to act?

    • #16093
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Most of the questions can be easily resolved if one understands the meaning of the Pali terms involved.

      Anantariya is “na” + “an” + “antara“. That rhymes as “ānantara”.

      Anatta is the negation of “atta” or having refuge/having substance: “na” + “atta” (which rhymes as “anatta”): there is no substance/ does not hold any ultimate truth; see, “Anatta – the Opposite of Which Atta?“.

      Words like this cannot be analyzed grammatically. This is why current Pāli experts are wrong in interpreting such words (and are unable to interpret many key words).

      Going back to the word “anantariya“: “An” or “anu” means “food” or “kamma seed” depending on where it is used. “na” means “not”. “antara” means somewhere away. Therefore, anantariya means “not stored away” in the sense that it bring vipaka “right away”.

      When one does a kamma that is NOT anantariya, its kammic energy is “stored away” and can bring suitable kamma vipaka, when suitable CONDITIONS appear. Some kamma vipaka may not be realized for many lives simply because suitable conditions had not appeared.

      However, an anantariya kamma means it will bring vipaka, at the end of the current life. “Right away” does not mean at that moment, but at death, because that is when the gandhabba comes out and is not shielded from the “dense human body”.

      Such “extremely strong” kamma are five: killing one’s mother, killing one’s father, killing an Arahant, shedding the blood of a Buddha, creating schism within Sangha.

      Any of those five kammas will override any existing other kamma vipaka, to bring next birth in the apayas. That is what is meant by an anantariya kamma. If there are any more questions left, please feel free to ask.

      Any other kamma vipaka can be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage). For example, if one has “apayagami kamma vipaka” waiting to bear fruit (as almost all normal humans do), attaining the Sotapanna stage will OVERRIDE those kamma vipaka.

      Attaining a magga phala does NOT mean the removal of kammic energies for such previous kamma. It just means, suitable conditions to bring such kamma vipaka will NEVER materialize in the future. To put it in another way: at the dying moment, a Sotapanna WILL NOT grasp (upadana) a birth in the apayas. His/her mindset has PERMANENTLY changed. This is why Angulimala became free of the apayas, even though he killed 999 people. That was not an anantariya kamma. Only those five kamma listed above are anantariya kamma.

      • #16097
        Embodied
        Spectator

        @Lal wrote “This is why Angulimala became free of the apayas, even though he killed 999 people.”
        So in other words one “can do” horrible deeds (like killing 1000 people) yet as much as one belongs to a sangha and has attained the sotapanna stage the kammic weight of such horrible deeds is considerably lightened ? Just asking.

    • #16099
      Lal
      Keymaster

      @Embodied: Isn’t that what I just explained? Please think before making comments. This discussion board is cluttered with unnecessary questions/comments like this.

      Hereafter, I am just going to delete such questions/comments. They do not serve any purpose. If something was not clear, you need to state WHAT you did not understand and WHY what I wrote did not make sense.

      Please understand that I cannot “make someone understand” a given concept. Only thing I CAN DO is to explain to the best of my ability. No one is paying me to do this, and I am doing this out of compassion. It is up to each person to make an EFFORT to understand.

    • #16100
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Well what you wrote was of such a nature that i had to look for confirmation.
      So thanks for confirming.

    • #16102
      y not
      Participant

      Thank you Lal:

      ‘at the dying moment, a Sotapanna WILL NOT grasp (upadana) a birth in the apayas’ and that would be the very ‘suitable condition’ for such kamma vipaka to NOT materialize.

      My difficulty was principally due to the two possible meanings of the word ‘conditions’ : one, in the sense of circumstances or situations or options around oneself that may be of consequence one way or another depending on one’s choice of and response to them (on condition that, provided that),and 2)the other, in the sense of one’s state of mind independent of that( one’s state of mind BEING the condition) In fact it is the second. If it were the first, then the question WOULD arise: WHAT TO DO so as NOT to grasp that bhava? – the condition being that if one does this or that then that bhava will not be grasped; if not, it will. I hope I have been clear (I have a feeling I have not)

      Now, ‘Any other kamma vipaka CAN be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage)’ -which addresses my question itself. So one can overcome any outcome of a kamma vipaka, any bhava, that may at that moment present itself?… human,deva,rupa, arupa?

      Thank you once again,

      I hope your answer is relevant to others as well.

      y not

    • #16104
      firewns
      Participant

      Hi y not,

      Let me ease Lal’s burden a bit and attempt to answer some of your questions (he has just come back from travelling and may be somewhat depleted of energy :))

      y not said: ‘Any other kamma vipaka CAN be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage)’ -which addresses my question itself. So one can overcome any outcome of a kamma vipaka, any bhava, that may at that moment present itself?… human,deva,rupa, arupa?’

      A sotapanna has only managed to overcome apayagami kamma due to overcoming three sanyojanas of sathkaya ditthi, vicikicca, silabbata paramasa, or one asava (ditthisava). He still has seven sanyojanas and three asavas left (kamasava, bhavasava, and avijjasava). Kama sava will keep him bound to kama loka (or the realms of sensual desire), while bhavasava will keep him bound to the rupa and arupalokas, I think. So he will still experience various kamma vipaka, as long as those are not of the apayagami sort, and he will undergo rebirths as long as bhavasava and avijjasava remain.

      Even an arahant or a fully enlightened Buddha experiences kamma vipaka, up until right before parinibbana, even if they have discarded all asavas and sanyojanas.

    • #16106
      Embodied
      Spectator

      @firewens wrote: “Even an arahant or a fully enlightened Buddha experiences kamma vipaka, up until right before parinibbana, even if they have discarded all asavas and sanyojanas.”

      Indeed…and why is that ?

    • #16107
      Lal
      Keymaster

      @Embodied: Why would an Arahant (or a Buddha) NOT experience kamma vipaka? Why do you think they should not experience kamma vipaka DURING their lives?

      • #16114
        Embodied
        Spectator

        @Lal,

        no in fact what i want to mean is that i agree (it could be the reverse but in this case i agree) with firewens.
        So my question “why is that?” relates to Parinibanna, meaning why is that all kamma vipaka vanishes when Parinibanna takes place.
        To another this might seem negligible but to me it’s relevant; but no one needs to discuss about right away…i’m succeeding in getting rid of anxiety, which is a nuance of greed but an heavy one from a kammic viewpoint.

        Thanks

        • #16115
          Lal
          Keymaster

          Embodied said: “So my question “why is that?” relates to Parinibanna, meaning why is that all kamma vipaka vanishes when Parinibanna takes place.”

          Why would not all kamma vipaka vanish for an Arahant when that Arahant attains Parinibbana?

          • #16116
            Embodied
            Spectator

            The question to be raised is rather :

            “Why does it disappear?”

            • #16117
              Lal
              Keymaster

              @Embodied: Whether it vanishes or disappears, it is the same thing.

              Let me repeat the two important questions that I raised above. Do you understand why:
              1. A LIVING Arahant is subjected to kamma vipaka DURING his/her life.
              2. No kamma vipaka will come to an Arahant AT or AFTER his/her death.

              This is done not to embarrass you or anyone else, but to get to the right question and then to answer. This could be the same issue that “y not” asking about. I am not sure. I just want to clarify the question before answering.

              • #16118
                Embodied
                Spectator

                @Lal,

                Vanishing/disappearing : of course it’s the same.
                “This is done not to embarrass you” : no worries Lal, i’m not “embarrassable.”
                As for your questions, i’ll answer tomorrow using my own vocabulary – except perhaps for two concepts, for which i might use Pali words.
                Now i’m not saying that what i have to say is the right / good answer (if not you’ll correct me -it’s by doing mistakes that one learns) , it will simply be my own sãnnã.

                • #16120
                  Lal
                  Keymaster

                  @Embodied: No need to do that.
                  I will explain those two issues below.

    • #16111
      y not
      Participant

      firewns:

      Thank you.

      I was aware of all you said. However, as it stands:‘Any other kamma vipaka can be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage’, on the face of it at least, would leave the possibilty of what could be read into it (as I did) open. If all that you elaborated on is ‘understood’, that notwithstanding, then it would leave no room for my question to arise. Thank you once again.

      Coming to Lal, I wholly share your concern. So much so, I told him in one of my posts not to bother to answer at once,( I recall now he was actually away at the time). I was in fact surprised he replied as soon as he did. Even now I feel a little uncomfortable asking him questions; the only reason I do is because he did answer; perhaps I am taking undue advantage. I will therefore stop addressing questions to him until such time as he says it is alright to do so. Others will act as they themselves see fit.- depending on the nature and degree of importance of their questions, I would like to think.

      thank you

      y not

    • #16127
      y not
      Participant

      Just found terms to better convey the two meanings of ‘conditions’ I had in mind in my post above -May 29, 2018 at 11:32 am. There I wrote:

      ‘My difficulty was principally due to the two possible meanings of the word ‘conditions’ : ONE, in the sense of circumstances or situations or options around oneself that may be of consequence one way or another depending on one’s choice of and response to them (on condition that, provided that),and 2)THE OTHER, in the sense of one’s state of mind independent of that( one’s state of mind BEING the condition) In fact it is the second. If it were the first, then the question WOULD arise: WHAT TO DO so as NOT to grasp that bhava? – the condition being that if one does this or that then that bhava will not be grasped; if not, it will.’

      ONE) would be simply stated as: under what conditions
      THE OTHER) ” ” ” on what condition

      I write this so that readers who may come across that post may better understand the background of the question. I thank all who took the time to answer.

      Metta to all

      y not

    • #16128
      Lal
      Keymaster

      There seems to be two issues that may be difficult to grasp.
      1. A LIVING Arahant is subjected to kamma vipaka DURING his/her life.
      2. No kamma vipaka will come to an Arahant AFTER his/her death.

      When we clarify some basic and fundamental issues, hopefully the answers will become clear.

      FIRST is the definition of an anantariya kamma vipaka. As I explained above, such a kamma vipaka should bring results “without a gap”, immediately.

      However, a “complication” arises due to a SECOND key factor. The primary “body” that is directly subjected to anantariya kamma vipaka is the “mental body” consisting of the kammaja kaya, cittaja kaya, and utuja kaya. All living beings have this “mental body” and in human and animal realms it is given a special name “gandhabba”.
      – The gandhabba or the mental body is trapped inside a solid physical body, and thus is “shielded” form those anantariya kamma vipaka.

      THIRDLY, in addition to the five “bad” anantariya kamma that I mentioned earlier, there are several “good” anantariya kamma: magga phala (stages of Nibbana) and attainment of (Ariya or anariya) jhanas. Of course these apply to only humans.

      If one did not have a solid body, one attaining the Anagami stage would be instantaneously born in the rupavacara realms reserved for the Anagamis, and one attaining the Arahant stage would immediately undergo Parinibbana (i.e., cease to exist in the 31 realms and immediately get to Nibbana). Furthermore, one attaining a jhana would immediately be born in a brahma realm.

      However, since the mental body is “shielded” by the solid physical body, any type of anantariya kamma vipaka will have to wait until the mental body comes out of the physical body AFTER the natural death of the physical body (In the case of an Arahant/yogi coming out of the physical body to perform supernormal powers, this does not apply since the two bodies have not been “kammically separated”).

      Those are THREE factors that we need to keep in mind.

      Now we can see why 1 and 2 above hold. An Arahant HAS TO live with the physical body that he/she was born with until the death of the physical body. At death, the gandhabba comes out and immediately undergoes Parinibbana. Until then, the physical body would have to bear many good and bad kamma vipaka.

      There is actually a FOURTH issue that completes this analysis. One attains the final stage of Nibbana (Arahanthood), not by removing or exhausting all kamma vipaka from the past.
      – One attains the Arahanthood by cultivating one’s panna (wisdom) to the level where one truly understands the real nature of this world. At that point one’s mind will not be tempted by ANY desire to born ANYWHERE in the 31 realms. That is a CRITICAL POINT to understand.
      – Now when the gandhabba comes out of the dead body of an Arahant, it immediately undergoes the cuti (separation from the human bhava), due to the anantariya kamma vipaka associated with the Arahant phala.
      – But now, that lifestream CANNOT grasp a new bhava anywhere in the 31 realms since there is no “upadana” in the step of “upadana paccaya bhava” in the Paticca Samuppada process.
      – Therefore, even though there are many good and bad kamma vipaka may be associated with that Arahant (the case of Angulimala is a good example), those all will become “ahosi kamma” (are not able to bring out vipaka), simply because one is not born in any of the 31 realms to experience them.

      In the case of the death of an Anagami, the gandhabba comes out, undergoes cuti, but can grasp a bhava in the rupavacara brahma realms reserved for the Anagamis. Therefore, a cuti-patisandhi transition takes place leading to the rebirth in such a realm. But an Anagami‘s mind would not grasp a bhava anywhere in the kamavacara realms, since he/she has lost all “upadana” (loosely tied to cravings) for such realms.

      In the same way, a Sotapannas’ mind would not grasp a bhava in the apayas. Any “apayagami kamma” he/she had done have now become “ahosi kamma“.

      Even though one who attained an anariya jhana would grasp a bhava in the appropriate brahma realm, that is just for that particular cuti-patisandhi transition. Since he/she had not attained a magga phala (and thus has not “seen” the futility/danger of “apayagami actions”), a birth in the apayas can happen in the future.

      Please feel free to ask questions if something is not clear. These are important issues to be resolved.

      Finally, I would like to point out the following about taking part in the discussion forum. I have seen many discussion forums where people use them to “show off” their knowledge. Here we are trying to learn true and pure Buddha Dhamma to seek relief from future suffering. This needs to be taken seriously, and I do not want this forum to become a philosophical-type forum where people write whatever comes to their minds.

      First thing in serious learning is to be able to admit that one does not know something, if that is the case. One should not try to explain things that one is not comfortable with. I do not try to explain things that I am confident of. If I do not have a comfortable understanding, I just say so. I am willing to change my interpretation of even those things that I feel comfortable about, if good evidence to the contrary is shown.

      Here are the rules advocated by the Buddha (for speech, but these discussions belong to the same category):
      -If you know something that is not helpful and is untrue, then do not say it
      -If you know something that might be helpful, but is untrue, do not say it
      -If you know something that is not helpful and is true, do not speak about it
      -If you know something that is helpful and is true, then find the right time to say it.

      In other words, state things that you know to be true AND only if that helps the topic of discussion. That will reduce a lot clutter in the discussion forum. Many people read these discussions, and we do not want them to waste their time reading unnecessary rantings.

      Please be to the point if you are confident about the material and be grammatical as much as possible. We want this website and the discussion forum to be a source of good information.

      On the other hand, I do not want to discourage useful discussions, so I hope I am not sending the wrong message.
      – One good practice that could help is not to post a reply right away in response to a new comment/question, but hold off at least an hour; give it more thought and formulate a response methodically.

      • #16129
        Johnny_Lim
        Participant

        Hi Lal,

        “If one did not have a solid body, one attaining the Anagami stage would be instantaneously born in the rupavacara realms reserved for the Anagamis…”

        Is this the case of a deva or rupavacara brahma who has attained Anagami fruition?

        “and one attaining the Arahant stage would immediately undergo Parinibbana (i.e., cease to exist in the 31 realms and immediately get to Nibbana)”

        In the Pure Abodes, is there no possibility of a living Arahant there since one who has attained Arahanthood would immediately enter Parinibbana?

        Thanks.

        • #16130
          Johnny_Lim
          Participant

          I would like to elaborate a bit on In the Pure Abodes, is there no possibility of a living Arahant there since one who has attained Arahanthood would immediately enter Parinibbana?. I’m referring to an Anagami who has attained Arahanthood in the Pure Abodes. So, the question is will this Anagami-turned-Arahant take a very long vacation in the Pure Abodes until his lifespan there is fully exhausted and then enters Parinibbana.

    • #16131
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Hi Johnny,
      Yes to those questions. As I understand, there are no living Arahants in Pure Abodes. If one does not attain Arahanthood prior to the end of the lifespan there, one would automatically attain Parinibbana at the moment of cuti.

    • #16146
      Akvan
      Participant

      Hi firewns,

      This was one aspect I had questions about and discussed this with Lal previously. Most of what I am writing is based on what I learnt and understood from those discussions.

      With regard to your question, of whether taking off life support of a parent leads to an ananthariya kamma; If someone commits these kamma, whether knowing or un-knowing, then he has committed an anantariya kamma.

      How would sotapannas and other ariyas handle such situations: A sotapanna will definitely not do those 5 anantariya kamma. Not everyone has or will face such a situation. This may mean that a sotapanna will not face a situation to do such a kamma.

      So the best method should be to avoid such situations. May be leave it up to the doctor, to decide. Also the financial side comes to play. But if you believe that one will go to the niraya because of this act, will you really bother about the finances? Can any amount of money come to your rescue in hell?

      With regard to putting an end to life due to suffering; the worst possible suffering anyone can undergo as a human is not even comparable to what one will have to go through in the niraya. So ending a life to put an end to suffering does not make sense.

      If one has commited one of these acts then there is no way to eliminate the vipaka from it. But yes they may be able to reduce the extent of suffering. This can be done through doing kusala kamma as much as possible and kusala kamma which have bigger impacts.

      Also someone who has committed such an act will not be able to understand the dhamma and become a sotapanna. That is why the Buddha went to angulimala before he killed his mother, because if he did kill her, he would not have been able to understand the dhamma.

      In the Samannaphala Suta https://suttacentral.net/dn2/en/bodhi it is stated “Soon after King Ajātasattu had left, the Exalted One addressed the bhikkhus: “This king, bhikkhus, has ruined himself; he has injured himself. Bhikkhus, if this king had not taken the life of his father, a righteous man and a righteous king, then in this very seat there would have arisen in him the dust-free, stainless eye of Dhamma.” So this shows that someone who has committed an anantariya kamma will not be able to understand the Dhamma, and become a sotapanna.

    • #16147
      Uyap
      Participant

      “There is NOTHING in this world that can be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run (anicca); thus, after much struggle we only end up with suffering (dukkha); thus, all these struggles are in vain and one is helpless (anatta)”

      Let it be, let it go…

      Uyap

    • #16153
      y not
      Participant

      Reference has been made to something I had written:

      ‘This COULD be the same issue that “y not” asking about’ -May 29, 2018 at 3:17 pm’

      It is possibile it is this, or that it is connected as a ground for it:

      Beings have been in sansara from beginingless time; when they attain Nibbana they will be there for endless time. (Whether any particular being must of necessity attain Nibbana in the long run is another matter and is not relevant here). Clearly then there is a continuity that is eternal, since 1) no being can COME INTO being and 2)the past can have no beginning, nor can the future have an end. For ‘being’ you can read : lifestream, entity, individual, self, soul,it does not matter, as long as the intended meaning is that of an ENDURING ‘X’ (so as not to be restricted and thus unduly influenced, even unintentionally, by the stringent meanings of those words or of any others that one may care to come up with) NOT AN UNCHANGING ‘X’. This ‘X’ must be enduring throughout the eternal process of first the timeless-in-the-past sansaric wanderings and the following timeless-in the-future abiding in Nibbana to make sense and purpose of all the striving and suffering involved.

      But, ENDURING does not mean UNCHANGING

      -There is a self: No. Because by ‘there is a self’ is meant or implied
      that there is an enduring and unchanging ‘X’

      -There is no self: No. Because by ‘there is no self’is meant or implied
      that there is no enduring but changing ‘X’

      In other words, how will an ‘X’ that is enduring but changing be described?

      There is an enduring ‘X’ but it is ever-changing, and that up until Parinibbana.

      y not

    • #16154
      Lal
      Keymaster

      OK, y not. It seems that you don’t have further questions on this issue. I am glad to hear that. It is not always clear to me exactly what a given person is asking.

      I am sure it works the other way too, i.e., my explanations may not be clear (or I am not really addressing the specific question/comment of a given person).

    • #16155
      firewns
      Participant

      y not said: There is an enduring ‘X’ but it is ever-changing, and that up until Parinibbana.

      I think it is not like that. I could be wrong of course. When we think of an enduring ‘X’ which is still ever-changing, we risk conceptualising the self-identity as having a permanent core with only its outer aspects or manifestations changing.

      It seems to me that we are a beginningless stream of kammic energy, fuelled by ignorance (avijja), craving (tanha) and grasping (upadana). Through patticca samuppada, avijja paccaya sankhara, vinnana, vedana, rupa and maybe sanna (which could be between phassa and vedana). Thus we are made up of the five skhandhas, which is further fuelled by the food we take in (ahara). Even the core (5 skhandhas) is ever-changing. Everything is in flux. We seem to conceptualise a united, fixed core because we somehow link this continuous chain of events in our memories to a single entity.

      However, there is probably no need to worry about that. It might become clear once the arahant magga is reached. I could be wrong of course. It seems to be too advanced to grasp for someone who is not yet a sotapanna. I am only thinking about this intellectually of course, and have not verified it through meditation.

    • #16156
      firewns
      Participant

      On second thoughts and after another round of careful reading of y not’s last post, I think that what I last posted could be what he is referring to. This is just me adding my 2 cents worth. :)

    • #16157
      firewns
      Participant

      Akvan, thank you very much for answering my question. I cannot thank you enough!

    • #16158
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Firewns said: “When we think of an enduring ‘X’ which is still ever-changing, we risk conceptualising the self-identity as having a permanent core with only its outer aspects or manifestations changing.”

      You are correct that, in the ABSOLUTE sense, there is no “permanent core”.
      But ALL humans below the Arahant stage are operating AS IF there is a “permanent core”.

      We can look at it this way: The sense of having a “permanent core” (which is best to be called “sense of me or self”) is very strong for a normal human. If one is not even aware of/ does not believe in laws of kamma, one could do strong immoral acts for the benefit of “me”.

      By the time one gets to the Sotapanna Anugami/Sotapanna stages, one realizes that it is not worthwhile AND dangerous to do such “apayagami immoral actions” for the benefit of “me” (mostly for sense pleasures).

      Then when one goes through the Sakadagami/Anagami stages, one realizes that even engaging in “harmless sense pleasures” is dangerous. By the Anagami stage, one AUTOMATICALLY loses craving for ALL sense pleasures.
      – For a normal human, even this stage is hard to fathom, i.e., one cannot even believe that such a state will be possible. For many people, the question could be: “why would one want to lose craving for sense pleasures?”.

      However, even an Anagami has the “sense of me”, and thus could be offended or at least perturbed (but not generate anger) by harsh criticism. One still wants to live in this world of 31 realms (actually only in mental states corresponding to those realms above the kama loka).

      The fruitlessness AND danger in even that will only be realized at the Arahant stage. That is when one finally gives up the “sense of me” or the “permanent core”. This is even more worse situation than the Anagami stage in the minds of most humans: “Why would I want to do that? I always want to live”.

      This is why I say that one needs to go step-by-step. Don’t even contemplate on the Anagami stage, until getting to the Sotapanna stage. It is likely that some of you CAN imagine the benefits of the Anagami stage, and may be getting there (or already there). In any case, one will KNOW when one gets there; no one else can know that.

      Therefore, the bottom line is that we are far from actually BELIEVING that there is no “permanent core”. It is truly comprehended ONLY at the Arahant stage.

      Put it in another way: Both views that “there is an unchanging self” and “there is no self” are wrong for any human who has not yet attained the Arahanthood. Only at the Arahant stage, that one truly realizes that “there is no point (and one will be subjected much suffering) in having a sense of self”. That “self” who undergoes suffering will cease to exist in this suffering-filled world of 31 realms at Parinibbana. Then that particular “self” will no longer exist in this world; he/she would be merged with Nibbana, which is permanent and without suffering.

      I hope everyone will read the above carefully.

    • #16162
      y not
      Participant

      Thank you everyone.

      I did have a question – along with 5 paras following. All disappeared just when I was about to hit submit.

      Perhaps so much the better for all of us!! No worries, Lal, your explanations are clear enough. It would be mine rather that arn’t.

      y not

    • #16178
      firewns
      Participant

      Thank you everyone (Lal, Akvan, y not, Uyap, Embodied) for your responses.

      It is a great pleasure to learn from you.

      Firewns

    • #16180
      y not
      Participant

      hello firewns’

      I in turn thank you for your responses.

      Please realise that that is just what they are, responses, so the only thing you will learn from me (I do not know about the others) is what I think on a particular topic.

      I mean, when I write it is in most cases in the form of a statement (airing my viewpoint) but by that I am directing a question, the statement IS the question: what do you think about this?, what are your views? So I am not stating facts, or how the matter, whatever it is, IS in reality.

      In the case when a reply from those who KNOW is expected it will be different: Is it so or not, does it conform with how it really is, refute my argument if it should be refuted. I wouldn’t say it is a challenge, but a call rather to take issue with my views. This is not always appreciated.

      Thank you once again

      y not

    • #16196
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Just published a new post “Ānantariya Kamma – Connection to Gandhabba“, which elaborates on my comments above.

    • #16198
      y not
      Participant

      Thank you Lal

      That clears a lot of questions that may arise.

      Sometimes it is the odd word that renders a sentence unclear to me. Take: ‘However,in the case of the death of an Anāgāmi, the gandhabba comes out, undergoes cuti, but CAN grasp a bhava in the rūpāvacara brahma realms reserved for the Anāgāmis.’ The question is why ‘can’ ? because that means that the gandhabba IS ABLE TO grasp a bhava in the rupavacara brahma realm, but not that it necessarily will do so. There is a choice. In other words, what determines which course the Anagami takes? (if it be so).

      Now compare: ‘To put it in another way: at the dying moment, a Sōtapanna WILL NOT grasp (upādāna) a birth in the apāyās.’ Here there is no way a Sotapanna will grasp that lower bhava. Just like: ‘But an Anāgāmi‘s mind would not grasp a bhava anywhere in the kāmāvacara. This is what I meant when I wrote about the difference between ‘under what conditions’ and ‘on what condition’. The first would be the case of the Anagami( in the first para), the second the Sotapanna’s and Anagami’s here.

      And, as an aside, why is an Anagami (non-returner) called such when he does return (to any of those realms reserved for Anagamis)? Only an Arahant does not return anywhere.

      Please appreciate that it is not my intention to find fault or to be difficult just for the sake of being a kind of ‘enfant terrible’ on here. The questions are genuine.

      Thank you for addressing (#12) a question I had raised.

      Ever so grateful,

      y not

    • #16203
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Y not asked: “..why is an Anagami (non-returner) called such when he does return (to any of those realms reserved for Anagamis)? Only an Arahant does not return anywhere.”

      It seems to me what you are really asking is: “ why is an Anagami called a non-returner? Only an Arahant does not return anywhere.”.

      The word Anāgāmi comes from “na” + “āgāmi” or “not coming back”: “na” + “āgāmi”  rhymes as “anāgāmi”. It  means “not coming back to the kama loka”.
      – He/she will attain Nibbāna from those brahma realms.

      By the way, this is another word the meaning of which comes only by analyzing phonetically, not grammatically, just like the word “ānantariya”, that we discussed above.

    • #16592
      Vince
      Participant

      Hello everyone

      Sorry to see this so late. I’m glad somebody made this thread since this is a topic that came up once in a discussion between myself and another monk and I still had some unresolved questions on the matter.

      I had a specific question about the issue of a dying parent being placed on or removed from life support; Does it count as an anantariya kamma if

      1) a person chooses not to place a dying parent on life support or

      2) if the person chooses to cease giving life support to a dying parent?

      To be more technical about it, in the former case isn’t the person simply making a choice to not interfere with the natural outcome of the parent’s life and thus not creating any new kamma vipaka, thus no anantariya kamma? And in the latter case the isn’t the person deciding to STOP DOING a given action (continuing the life support) and allowing the parent die of natural causes? The person is not COMMITTING a deliberate action TOWARD the parent that TAKES or SHORTENS the parent’s life in an unnatural or violent way. The death of parent is inevitable and in both instances no deliberate harmful action is done against the parent and there is no hateful javana citta involved in any way. This is my perspective on the situation, but if I am mistaken then I’d appreciate being set straight.

      I thought it was a question worth bringing up since many of us could face this situation one day, and it would be a difficult and painful ordeal for the parent and the child.

      Thanks

    • #16593
      firewns
      Participant

      Not trying to be difficult here or to cause trouble, but this is an example of how difficult it is to resolve certain kamma issues.

      Suppose there is a train driver driving a train along a track. He comes to a fork in the tracks with the possibility of going down two different routes. In each of the two forks, unfortunately there is a known Arahant monk in the community. Should the train driver hit the Arahant on the left track, or the one on the right track? Or should he derail the train altogether, killing himself and hundreds of passengers on the train, causing much grief and lamentation to their surviving families?

      It could be argued that the Arahants’ deaths would be a final release for them from suffering and thus would not matter much for them. But death would not be a final release for the hundreds of people on the train, and could cause much further suffering down the road. Furthermore, to the train driver, would hitting one Arahant in order to save another Arahant be considered an anantariya akusala kamma?

      In the case of whether or not to put parents on life support, I view it as seizing the opportunity to save and preserve the lives of the parents. It should be a kusala kamma. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

    • #16594
      Lal
      Keymaster

      @Vince and @firewrns:
      This issue has been discussed under several topics, and a couple of links are given below.

      Three main things to remember are:

      1. There are five anantariya kamma: killing mother, killing father, killing an Arahant, injuring a Buddha (a Buddha cannot killed), Sangha bheda (which is interpreted as schism among Sangha, but also includes misinterpretation of Dhamma).
        No other kamma will be an anantariya kamma.

      2.In many instances, an action may involve both kusala/punna kamma and akusala/papa kamma. Sorting out some complex situations is almost impossible.
      – As one progresses on the Path, one will automatically make right decisions.

      1. Regarding #2 above, “cetana” in an action is determined by the what types of cetasika arise AUTOMATICALLY in one’s mind. That is based on one’s understanding of Dhamma.

      These are discussed in:
      Clarification of definition – ” anantariya“”

      What is Intention in Kamma?“.

      Kanha (Dark) and Sukka (Bright) Kamma and Kammakkhaya

      Kamma is a complex subject. The third post above should be read at the end. It discusses “effective removal of kamma“.

      The key point is that these complex issues will be resolved in stages as one progresses on the path. But it is OK to think about them. When reading the above discussions and posts, hopefully things will become more clear.

    • #16609
      Vince
      Participant

      Lal,

      Thank you for these links, they do help to clarify a bit more. My confusion wasn’t about the concept of what is or isn’t an akusala anantariya kamma; I know that the workings of kamma is a complex subject. I was hoping to shed some light on the specific situation I was describing. The monk that I mentioned (the abbot) was adamant that a person must not “pull the plug” on an aging parent who is on life support and that doing so constitutes an akusala anantariya kamma and the person will go to Avecii hell. I’m not sure if he also meant that you must unequivocally put an aging parent on life support, because sometimes things get lost in translation between us. I disagree with him that either action constitutes an akusala anantariya kamma for 2 reasons:

      1) the intention isn’t to kill and

      2) there isn’t anyone doing any real “killing”; the person on life support is going to die on their own due to natural causes and their life is being prolonged in an unnatural way

      Ultimately I suppose it’s just a niggling question that may not be possible to answer in a way that is 100% precise, and the noble thing to do is to take care of the person for as long as possible.

    • #16610
      Vince
      Participant

      Firewns,

      No offense, but I think you are on a completely different page from what I’m talking about. I was looking for more clarification concerning the outcome of a specific set of actions in a specific situation, based on variables of intention, context/conditions and cause and effect results of certain actions. You seem to be talking about a more generalized moral dilemma.

      In the post “What is Intention in Kamma?“ there are two examples given; one where Person X shoots and kills his father at night, mistakenly believing his father to be an intruder in X’s home, and a second example where Person X is repairing his roof, throws something heavy from the top of the roof and the object accidently hits and kills X’s father who happens to be standing below, unbeknownst to Person X. In the first example an akusala anantariya kamma is committed but in the second example there is none since it was an accident.

      Bearing this in mind and applying it to your example, I’d think there would be no akusala anantariya kamma committed if the driver ran over either one of the arahants on the tracks because his only intention was to do his job and get his passengers to where they needed to go. He would have had no way of knowing there would be an arahant in his path on the way to the destination. Alternatively, if he chose to derail the train then that would be an intentional action possibly resulting in the deaths of all the passengers. And – unbeknownst to the driver – there could be Ariyas among them, similar to the situation in the first example given above.

      Concerning the case of putting parents on life support, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that it’s a kusala kamma but I don’t think it makes a very big difference in the end; the parents’ quality years are behind them, their physical and mental faculties are degraded and thus they don’t have the ability to do meritorious deed or develop their minds. On the other hand, if it were a situation where a person’s parents still had many years of life ahead of them but were very sick and could only recover with the aid of a life support system then of course providing that for them would be a much stronger kusala kamma. You would be giving them the opportunity to continue living, do more good deeds and even learn and comprehend Dhamma, if they chose to do so.

    • #16612
      Lal
      Keymaster

      @Vince: Sorry. I guess I did not catch that it was his father. So, let us look at your specific question:

      “I had a specific question about the issue of a dying parent being placed on or removed from life support; Does it count as an anantariya kamma if

      1) a person chooses not to place a dying parent on life support or

      2) if the person chooses to cease giving life support to a dying parent?”

      First of all, in cases like this, children SHOULD NOT get involved in the decision making; it is far too dangerous for them. It is best to leave such decisions to the medical personnel (and maybe to other close relatives, who would not be subjected to anantariya kamma).

      With that out of the way, I think either decision above could be counted as anantariya kamma in some cases and possibly not in other cases (as you said, it depends on what types of cetasika arise in the mind of the decision maker).

      This is why it is best to leave the decision to others. Even if they make the “wrong decision”, it will not become an anantariya kamma for them. I remember a desana by Waharaka Thero, where he said that usually son-in-law or daughter-in-law could consult with medical personnel to make such decisions. That makes sense to me.

    • #16623
      Vince
      Participant

      I see, that makes sense. Thank you!

      I hope my folks just pass away peacefully with no complications. Ha!

    • #16625
      Akvan
      Participant

      Hi Vince,

      This is how I see these 2 situations.

      1) If a person chooses not to place a dying parent of life support.

      If the persons intention is to kill the parent by not placing him on life support then it is an ananthariya kamma. Placing on life support is only one medical option, and just because one is placed on life support does not mean that the patient has a 100% chance of living. There are instances where different doctors propose contrasting treatments to the same patient. The patient’s family will have to choose one over the other. I think life support should be viewed in a similar manner.

      2) If the person chooses to switch off the life support.

      If such a decision is made and the patient dies because of an action following that decision, then an ananthariya kamma may be created. When one decides to switch off a patient’s life support, the intention more often is to cease the patient’s life. However there are instances where the patient lives on even after the life support is switched off, and in such a case no ananthariya kamma will take place although a grave papa / akusala kamma will be created, due to the decision to switch off the life support.

      Going back to point 1): If we know that we may face a situation like situation 2) if we choose to put someone on life support, then I believe the safest would be not to put the patient on life support.

    • #16631
      firewns
      Participant

      Vince,

      The intention of my response was not meant to throw the discussion off track or to show off. Indeed it was partly to highlight the limited extent of my knowledge.

      I must admit that I am not wise or knowledgeable enough to answer your question. Still, I hoped to shed some light on this matter to help you arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by examining it in a more positive light, i.e. whether there would be any opportunity to create kusala kamma, as opposed to whether there would be any akusala kamma created.

      I sincerely apologize if I have inadvertently created any frustration for you, and hope you have had your questions answered to some extent by the others.

    • #16656
      Vince
      Participant

      Thanks guys

      Firewns

      No worries, I’m not frustrated. I see that these discussions can get pretty technical and different people latch onto different details. Some of the time I read threads on here and see the discussions start to veer away from the original topic, so I wanted to make sure I was clear. I surely appreciate the input.

    • #22912
      sybe07
      Participant

      Hi All,

      Does anyone know a sutta reference that shows the 5 heinous crimes lead directly to birth in hell after death?

      thanks,
      Siebe

    • #22946
      SengKiat
      Moderator

      @sybe07 said:”Does anyone know a sutta reference that shows the 5 heinous crimes lead directly to birth in hell after death?”
      There are six heinous crimes in this sutta MN 115 – Many Elements – Bahudhātukasutta.

      See the right side text referrence SC 13.1 to 13.10.

      1. mātaraṃ jīvitā voropeyya (to murder their mother)
      2. pitaraṃ jīvitā voropeyya (to murder their father)
      3. arahantaṃ jīvitā voropeyya (to murder a perfected one (arahant))
      4. duṭṭhacitto tathāgatassa lohitaṃ uppādeyya (to injure a Realized One (Buddha) with malicious intent)
      5. saṅghaṃ bhindeyya (to cause a schism in the Saṅgha)
      6. aññaṃ satthāraṃ uddiseyya (to acknowledge another teacher (beside the Buddha))

      Second sutta sutta Aṅguttara Nikāya 1.21 First – paṭhamavagga Verse 271 to 276.

      Third sutta AN 6.94 Things That Can’t Be Done (3rd) – Tatiyaabhabbaṭṭhānasutta.

      With metta, SengKiat

    • #22950
      sybe07
      Participant

      Thanks SengKiat,

      I am more specifically searching for a sutta which clearly states that those listed heinous crimes after death immeditialy lead to rebirth in hell.

      kind regards,
      Siebe

    • #22956
      Christian
      Participant

      Parikuppa Sutta

    • #22961
      sybe07
      Participant

      Thanks Christian!

      Yes, Thanissaro translates that those deeds are incurable. This probably means that those 5 heinous crimes lead to hell after death. That’s what Sujato seems to translate.

      https://suttacentral.net/an5.129/en/thanissaro
      https://suttacentral.net/an5.129/en/sujato

      thanks,
      Siebe

    • #22962
      y not
      Participant

      Very few indeed will be going to hell as a result of anantariya papa kamma
      done in the current life. But of course, others from previous bhavas may
      surface at the cutipatisandhi moment – and here lies the danger.

      The Buddha is not around, of Arahants there cannot be many, if any, so it is
      practically the isolated cases of the killing of mother or father that lead
      there, and causing dissention (even if by the written word)that may lead to a
      schism in the Sangha,and acknowledging another teacher besides the Buddha,
      if that is included.

      Those who have gone for Refuge (saranam) in the Buddha (Dhamma and Sangha)
      alone,accepting ‘the principles proclaimed by the Realized One after considering
      them with a degree of wisdom’ and those who ‘have a degree of faith and love
      for the Buddha’ do not go to any of the apayas, even before attaining any stage
      of magga phala (SN 55.24)

      Metta to all

    • #22974
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Here is the complete sutta that Christian quoted:
      Parikuppa Sutta (AN 5.129)“: “Pañcime, bhikkhave, āpāyikā nerayikā parikuppā atekicchā. Katame pañca? Mātā jīvitā voropitā hoti, pitā jīvitā voropito hoti, arahaṃ jīvitā voropito hoti, tathāgatassa duṭṭhena cittena lohitaṃ uppāditaṃ hoti, saṃgho bhinno hoti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca āpāyikā nerayikā parikuppā atekicchā”ti.”

      I think the translation of the first sentence should be: “There are these five actions that maximally disturbs the mind via attachment to eight things and will lead to birth in an apāya or niraya”.
      – But it does not specifically say that one would be born in the apayas immediately following the death of the current physical body.

      The key words are parikuppā (completely disturbed mind) and atekicchā (strong attachment to eight asaddhamma or “bad things”).
      – It is not possible to do such an action without a fully perturbed mind (parikuppā).
      Atekicchā is explained in the “Deva­datta­vi­pat­ti Sutta, AN 8.7“.

      P.S. I revised the above comment regarding the word atekicchā after doing some more research; see my comment below.

    • #22975
      Lal
      Keymaster

      After looking into this, I realized that answer to Siebe’s question is not to be found in a sutta.

      He asked: “Does anyone know a sutta reference that shows the 5 heinous crimes lead directly to birth in hell after death?’
      and,
      “I am more specifically searching for a sutta which clearly states that those listed heinous crimes after death immediately lead to rebirth in hell.”

      Those five types of strong kamma are called ānatariya kamma (that invariably bring vipāka at the death the current physical body, i.e., will not be carried to future lives).

      The five five types of ānatariya kamma are defined in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, not in the Sutta Pitaka. They are listed under Pañcakamātikā as: “Tattha katamāni pañca kammāni ānantarikāni? Mātā jīvitā voropitā hoti, pitā jīvitā voropito hoti, arahanto jīvitā voropito hoti, duṭṭhena cittena tathāgatassa lohitaṃ uppāditaṃ hoti, saṃgho bhinno hoti—imāni pañca kammāni ānantarikāni. (9)”.

      See, “Khudda­ka­vatthu­ Vibhaṅga“.

      I will write a post in the future on this, but the word “anantariya” comes from “na” + “an” + “antara”, or “without delay”.
      While other kamma vipaka may be realized in future lives, vipaka of anantara kamma will occur in this life of more commonly at the end of this life.

      There are “good anantariya kamma” too. For example, if one cultivates jhana, one will be born in a brahma realm at the death of the current physical body.

    • #22976
      y not
      Participant

      There are however instances in the suttas where a heinous act led directly
      to hell, and at once, not even waiting for the life to come to its natural
      end, i.e.it happened right after the deed was committed.

      Such a one is JA 72 Silavanaga jataka, where Devadatta in a former existence
      was an ingrate with the Boddhisatta elephant, sawing off all his ivory.
      Another is where someone slanders Vens Mahamogallana and Sariputta. The Buddha
      thrice tells him ‘do not say so, do not say so’. He is swallowed up into Avichi
      right afterwards. I have come across others, but I cannot remember which suttas
      they were.

      Metta to all

Viewing 53 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.