[upekkha100]

Pāpa Kamma Versus Akusala Kamma

From #7 in the post:
“I want to emphasize that all of the following four actions contribute in each of the above listed immoral actions in #4 and #5 above (If done on a regular basis):
“-Doing it.
-Assisting another person to do it.
-Ordering (or instructing) another person to do it.
-Praising someone who is doing it.”

My questions:
1) Those 4 actions also apply to good deeds?

2) The order that those 4 acts are listed, is it in order of highest kammic weight to lowest kammic weight(assuming the actions are done to the same sentient being)?
Example:
A) X lying to Y.
B) Z lying to Y.
C) X mentally approving/getting joy out of Z lying to Y.
The action done in A would have more kammic weight than the action done in C?

3) Does anyone happen to know what sutta or section in Abhidhamma this is from?

[Lal]

“1) Those 4 actions also apply to good deeds?”
Yes.

“2) The order that those 4 acts are listed, is it in order of highest kammic weight to lowest kammic weight(assuming the actions are done to the same sentient being)?”

Mental effects are hard to quantify, as I explained in a previous comment too. It depends also on the mental state (progress on the Path) of the particular person.

Please read the posts mentioned in #14 of that post.

For example, killing a human is million-fold worse than killing an animal. Even saying something hurtful to a human is much worse than killing an animal. These cannot be explained in a single response like this or even in a post. I highly recommend reading those posts in #14. If there are more questions, we can discuss those.

Lying is also really not “musā vāda”. The precept “musā vāda veramani sikkhā padam samādiyāmi” has been one of the precepts that is being mis-translated as, “I will refrain from lying”.

“musā” is wrong and “vāda” is trying to make a point. So, musa vada really means “making adhamma to be dhamma and vice versa.
– For example, if one says it is OK to kill animals for pleasure, that is a musā vāda. If someone says, “There is no rebirth” or “there is no benefit in giving” those are musā vāda.

Let me give an example of a case of lying that is not musā vāda; When Nazis came looking for Jews, some Germans hid them in their homes. If Nazis came to their house and asked whether there are any Jews in the house, they would say “no”. That was a lie, but is not a musā vāda. They were trying to save the lives of those people.

Here is an example from the Tipitaka that most people are aware of. Prince Nanda (who was a cousin of prince Siddhartha), was going to get married to a beautiful princess and also become the King on the same day. The Buddha saw that Nanda had the ability to become an Arahant. So, he persuaded Nanda to become a bhikkhu. Even though Nanda became a bhikkhu, he kept thinking about his princess. So, the Buddha one day took him to the deva realm and showed him some beautiful female devas, and asked him he would rather those or the princess that he was going to get married to. Bhikkhu Nanda said, his princess was like a “burnt monkey” compared to those female devas. So, the Buddha promised that Nanda would be able to have those female devas, if he followed the instructions given by the Buddha. By following those instructions, Ven. Nanda soon attained the Arahanthood.
– A Buddha would never be able utter a musā vāda. What he actually did was to save Nanda from unimaginable future suffering. If he became the King, he would accumulate many bad kamma enough to be born in the apayas many time over.
– However, this does mean it is OK to lie. In most cases, a lie is a musā vāda.

[upekkha100]

Yes I have read #14 and the links included there. I understand that the exact detailed working of kamma cannot be quantified or determined by anyone other than a Buddha, but we can get a general idea about the workings of kamma.

So I’ll use an extreme example:
1) X actually kills Y.
2) X helps someone kill Y.
3) X orders/instructs someone else to kill Y.
4) X here did not even lay a finger on Y, but is mentally glad about the killing of Y.

From the above, to me it would be clear that X would get worse kamma from doing #1 than doing #4.

This is of course assuming 2 things:
a) the target sentient being is the same in all 4 actions(in this example, the target sentient being is Y in each of the 4 actions).
b) the strength of intention of X in all 4 actions are also the same or at least similar(example: the dosa cetasika is strong in X’s mind in all 4 actions.)

If the target sentient being(Y) is the same in all 4 actions, X is doing the following
1) kaya kamma(miccha kammantha)
2) kaya kamma(miccha kammantha)
3) vaci kamma(miccha vaca)
4) vaci kamma(miccha sankappa)

As I read before, kaya kamma has more kammic weight than vaci kamma in general. In general kammantha would be more than vaca, and vaca would be more than sankappa.

In terms of anantariya kamma, #1 is the only action that will be considered the anatariya papa kamma. Whereas #2/3/4(even though these are also highly immoral)will not be anatariya papa kamma.

Same thing for good deeds. If X gave food to the Buddha, that would yield higher kammic weight than if X encouraged/instructed someone else to give food to the Buddha. This is again, assuming the alobha/adosa/karuna cetasika in X’s mind are all very strong(same/similar) in both of those actions.

So that is why I think the order that those 4 actions are listed to be a general indicator of kammic weight.

[Lal]

As I said in a different post, it is not possible to quantify the “strengths” of different types of kamma. Some of what you stated do make sense, though.

Furthermore,when they bring vipaka normally many past kamma are combined, so it is not at all possible to sort things out.

It is enough to know the general trends. We should abstain from all four of those things to do with akusala kamma.

To repeat what I had stated earlier:
From the Acinteyya Sutta (AN 4.77):

“There are these four things that are not to be conjectured about, that could make one go mad (become a mental patient). Which four?

• The Buddha-range (i.e., Buddha’s knowledge) is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about.
• The jhana-range of a person in jhana (including kinds of supernormal powers that one can attain).
• The precise workings of kamma.
• Origins of the world.

These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and confusion to anyone who tries to find everything about them.”

[Lvalio]

May the blessings of the triple gem be with all of you!
First of all let me introduce myself. I’m Brazilian and I live in São Paulo, Brazil. My first language is Portuguese and although I am able to read English and translate very well, writing is much harder, especially colloquial language. So I pray that, beforehand, forgive me all the mistakes and correct me if necessary. I am Follow Lal and his Posts from 2016. By the month of August I began to understand the expression “Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, when translating the book Buddhist-inspired “Issues from the Moss”, a Norwegian woman who almost alone, has achieved a State of liberation (Sotapanna, I think), I learned enough to become a reader of Lal (found Pure Dhamma on the Internet and I had to decide between two sites: the Lal and Michael Kewley → did not think it was coincidence that I have chosen Lal …).
The translation of the Book (original was in English) began in April 2016 and the date with the posts of Lal in July (dates are approximate) and then I repeated ANICCA, DUKKHA, ANATTA to myself, all day long…
I’m just reading posts on the Forum every day that I can and have learned so much and for that I am very grateful to LAL and ALL of YOU! THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL OF YOU!
Lal said: “Here is an example from the Tipitaka that most people are aware of. Prince Nanda (who was a cousin of prince Siddhartha), was going to get married to a beautiful princess and also become the King on the same day. The Buddha saw that Nanda had the ability to become an Arahant…”
Lal, could you please quote for me the source of that story of the Buddha and Prince Nanda?
Lair

[upekkha100]

Hi Lvalio! Welcome to the forum!

You can read about that story of Nanda here:
Nanda Sutta

[Lal]

Yes. Welcome to the forum, Lvalio!

I have been travelling today.

Thanks to upekkha for providing the information for Lvalio.

[Author]

Posts