Dear Bhante
Ariyadhammika,
I have been giving Bhante's kamma-of-arahants view {as I perceive it} more thought and would like to offer the following critique and repudiation of the arguments that Bhante has put forth in support for designating the arahant's actions as kamma {at least suggesting that it is fine to use same word}. I hope that this more direct approach will give Bhante a more convincing reason for my suggestion to use the Buddha's own designation of "kammanirodha" to designate the actions of arahants {if this is actually the matters ground}.
I will analyze the arguments that Bhante has used {as I perceived them} to justify the kamma-of-arahants view in order to show {in my approach} the following:
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without contradicting the four noble truths.
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without proliferating that which ought not be proliferated, an unwarranted papañcā.
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without encountering a self-contradiction.
May Bhante forgive me if my critique of Bhante's arguments in these analyses comes off as offensive in any way, for that is not my motive.
May Bhante kindly point out any flaws in these analyses that Bhante may find, or provide feedback on any misinterpretations or unjustified deductions from Bhante's arguments, out of compassion.
* Saddhamma: In my translations for the suttas used in these analyses, I will leave
saṅkhārā untranslated since being a negative, there is no satisfactory English word to capture its full meaning. However, the instantiations of
saṅkhārā (
abhisaṅkharonti) and the resulting instances (
saṅkhata) can be reluctantly rendered in English as "precondition" and "the conditioned" respectively. Dhamma is also left untranslated due to its broad range of meanings.
Papañcā is translated as proliferations where needed, otherwise, it is left untranslated. Here, the following definition of precondition is used for translating
abhisaṅkharonti:
Precondition: the act of preparing something for a subsequent action
Repudiation of the kamma-of-arahants view by way of exposing a contradiction to Buddha's teachings of the four noble truths
To justify the {a} kamma-of-arahants view {if that was the purpose of the essay}, Bhante writes:
The relationship between sammā kammantā and kammanirodha I understand as follows: Sammā kammantā, when supported by the other path factors, eventually leads (saṁvattati) to the cessation of rebirth-productive kamma at the time of attainment of Arahantship, and to the cessation of all actions (kamma) by body speech or mind, at the time of the Arahant's khandhaparinibbāna.
Here, Bhante introduces an {lit.}
abhhidhamma style re-definition of
kammanirodha as rebirth-productive
kammanirodha upon the attainment of arahantship, and all-action (by body, speech or mind)
kammanirodha at the time of the Arahant's
khandhaparinibbāna. Bhante introduces a term
khandhaparinibbāna which I am unable to find
in the suttas. Neither is there any distinction in the suttas between
nibbana at the time of arahantship attainment (
sandiṭṭhikanibbāna), and
parinibbāna (see
AN 9.47-49 ). I understand that Bhante is using this term to refer to the arahant's [final] "cessation of the six sense bases of contact", so I will use this phrasing instead, to make it easier for those who are not familiar with
abhidhamma or commentarial terms. Let us {me try to} analyze Bhante's {possible} re-definition of
kammanirodha from the perspective of the
kammanirodha sutta to see if it {my perception of it} is {could be} justified.
To aid analysis, I attempt a more direct rendition of the
kammanirodha sutta (
SN 35.146 ) as follows.
“navapurāṇāni , bhikkhave, kammāni desessāmi kammanirodhaṃ kammanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadaṃ. taṃ suṇātha, sādhukaṃ manasi karotha; bhāsissāmīti.
"O bhikkhus, I will teach you new and old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen to that and do mind it well, I will speak."
katamañca, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṃ?
cakkhu, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṃ abhisaṅkhataṃ abhisañcetayitaṃ vedaniyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ...pe.... mano purāṇakammo abhisaṅkhato abhisañcetayito vedaniyo daṭṭhabbo.
idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṃ.
And what, O bhikkhus, is old kamma?
The eye, O bhikkhus, is old kamma, especially conditioned, especially intended, to be felt, to be seen. ...pe.... The mind, O bhikkhus, is old kamma, especially conditioned, especially intended, to be felt, to be seen.
This is called, O bhikkhus, old kamma.
katamañca, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ?
yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, etarahi kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācāya manasā,
idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ.
And what, O bhikkhus, is new kamma?
O bhikkhus, whatever present action is done by body, speech, or mind.
This is called, O bhikkhus, new kamma.
katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodho?
yo kho, bhikkhave, kāyakammavacīkammamanokammassa nirodhā vimuttiṃ phusati, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodho.
And what, O bhikkhus, is the cessation of kamma?
[That] which touches liberation through the cessation of bodily action, verbal action and mental action.
This is called, O bhikkhus, the cessation of kamma.
katamā ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagāminī paṭipadā?
ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo, seyyathidaṃ -- sammādiṭṭhi, sammāsaṅkappo, sammāvācā, sammākammanto, sammāājīvo, sammāvāyāmo, sammāsati, sammāsamādhi
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagāminī paṭipadā.
“And what, O bhikkhus, is the path leading to the cessation of kamma?
It is just this noble eightfold path, that is -- right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood , right effort, right mindfulness, right samādhi.
This is called, O bhikkhus, the path leading to the cessation of kamma.
]iti kho, bhikkhave, desitaṃ mayā purāṇakammaṃ, desitaṃ navakammaṃ, desito kammanirodho, desitā kammanirodhagāminī paṭipadā. yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, satthārā karaṇīyaṃ sāvakānaṃ hitesinā anukampakena anukampaṃ upādāya, kataṃ vo taṃ mayā. etāni, bhikkhave, rukkhamūlāni, etāni suññāgārāni. jhāyatha, bhikkhave, mā pamādattha; mā pacchāvippaṭisārino ahuvattha. ayaṃ vo amhākaṃ anusāsanī”ti.
“Thus, O bhikkhus, I have taught old kamma, I have taught new kamma, I have taught the cessation of kamma, I have taught the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever should be done, O bhikkhus, by a teacher for his disciples, desiring their welfare, having pity for them, that has been done for you by me, out of compassion. These are the feet of trees, O bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Cultivate jhāna, O bhikkhus, do not be negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.”
The
kammanirodha sutta is a formulation of the four noble truths in terms of kamma instead of
dukkha as expressed in the standard formulation.
To show that the
kamma formulation is equivalent to the standard formulation, it is shown that each noble truth in the standard formulation is equivalent to the corresponding noble truth in the
kamma formulation as follows:
The standard formulation identifies the five holding aggregates as suffering in brief (
saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā), indicating that the six sense bases (old
kamma) must be identified as suffering in the kamma formulation. Let's see if that is the case. From the
mahāhatthipadopama sutta (
MN 28 ), we know that each sense base of contact arises with the five holding aggregates. Thus, the arising of the sense bases of contact is the arising of suffering. So we see an agreement between the standard formulation and kamma formulation of the first noble truth.
The second noble truth in the standard formulation defines craving as the origination of suffering, whereas the kamma formulation defines "whatever present action is done by body, speech, or mind" (new kamma) as the origination of suffering. This implies that the arising of present bodily, verbal or mental action is the arising of craving. This is consistent with the Buddha's designation of kamma in the
paṭhamanidāna sutta (
AN 3.111 [112]) as either leading to the origination of kamma or to the cessation of
kamma, which is applicable only to those who have not destroyed craving. Thus, we see an agreement between the standard formulation and kamma formulation of the second noble truth.
The third noble truth in the standard formulation defines the destruction of craving as the cessation of suffering, whereas the third noble truth in the kamma formulation defines "[that] which touches liberation through the cessation of bodily action, verbal action and mental action" (
kammanirodha) as the cessation of suffering. In the suttas, we find that the destruction of kamma is synonymous with the destruction of craving. For example, here is a verse from the
pārāyanavagga (
Snp 5.0 ) by a deva extolling the Buddha's destruction of all
kamma.
“so hi brāhmaṇa sambuddho, sabbadhammāna pāragū.
sabbābhiññābalappatto, sabbadhammesu cakkhumā.
sabbakammakkhayaṃ patto, vimutto upadhikkhaye.
He is a Sambuddha, brahmin, a transcender of all dhammas,
Having attained all higher knowledges and powers, endowed with eye in all dhammas,
he has attained to the destruction of all kamma, liberated through the destruction of all appropriations.
And here is a verse where the Buddha himself extolls the arahant's abandonment of all kamma in the
mahaviyuha sutta (
Snp 4.13 ).
sīlabbataṃ vāpi pahāya sabbaṃ
kammañca sāvajjanavajjametaṃ
suddhī asuddhī ti apatthayāno
virato care santimanuggahāya
Having abandoned all virtue and observances
and kamma, whether blameworthy or blameless,
with no aspiration regarding “the pure and the impure”,
he would live unconcerned, not grasping after peace.
So from these examples, the destruction of craving is the destruction of action. Thus, we see an agreement between the standard formulation and
kamma formulation of the third noble truth.
The agreement between the standard formulation and the
kamma formulation for the forth noble truth is self-evident and need no further elaboration.
Thus, the
kammanirodha sutta can be summarize as follows:
- The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind bases of contact (old kamma) is suffering. It must be fully comprehended.
- Whatever present action is done by body, speech, or mind (new kamma) is the origination of suffering. It must be abandoned.
- Attainment of liberation through the cessation of bodily action, verbal action and mental action (kammanirodha) is the cessation of suffering. It must be realized.
- Just this noble eightfold path is the path leading to the cessation of suffering (kamma). It must be cultivated.
So we see that the
kammanorodha sutta is a deep exposition of the four noble truths.
If we go by Bhante's re-definition of
kammanirodha that the arahant only realizes half of
kammanirodha upon attaining arahantship and the other half at the time of the arahant's [final] cessation of the six sense bases of contact, we have to conclude, for the sake of consistency with the four noble truths, that the arahant only realizes half of the cessation of suffering upon attaining arahantship and the other half at the time of the arahant's [final] cessation of the six sense bases of contact. But this is a grave contradiction of the four noble truths as taught by the Buddha. Thus, we see that designating the arahant's action as
kamma by re-defining
kammanirodha contradicts the Buddha's teaching of the four noble truths.
The
kammanirodha sutta, along with other suttas that are quoted at the beginning of the kamma-of-arahants article, namely the
nidāna sutta (
AN 3.34 ),
mahānidāna sutta (
DN 15 ), and
paṭhamasikkhāpada sutta (
AN 4.235 ), are all very deep suttas where the Buddha illucidates the finer aspects of the supramundane right view of kamma and
paṭicca samuppāda. They are deep in meaning (
gambhīratthā), world transcending (
lokuttara), connected with emptiness (
suññatapaṭisaṃyuttā). They belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, leading to disenchantment (
nibbidā), to fading away (
virāga), to cessation (
nirodha), to
nibbāna.
The faults I see with the article is that it reduces these deep expositions on the
dhamma dealing with supramundane right view which has the deathless as its destination, to mundane right view which only swells the cemeteries. The abhidhamma style oversimplification of these expositions brings the article to an anticlimax when the following question is posed:
At this point it may also be relevant to investigate who the recipient of the kammic fruits of one´s wholesome and unwholesome deeds of body, speech or mind, is. The doer himself, or others? The answer is found in the following stock-phrases in the discourses: “I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.” (AN 10.48 )
“Beings are owners of their actions, student, heirs of their actions; they originate from their actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior.” (MN 135 )
Perhaps the sutta translations used in the article, some of which betray a bias towards traditional commentaries, contributed to the oversimplification of these deep suttas. For example, in the translation of kammanirodha sutta used in the article, a "doer" is arbitrarily inserted into the phrasing where a "doer" is not necessary in the context of the
kammanirodha sutta. Thus, the right phrasing of the dhamma is lost, leading to the wrong interpretations and the posing of mundane questions that does not fit the context. The Buddha's exposition of the four noble truths in the kammanirodha sutta is in the context of supramundane (
lokuttara) right view, where the four noble truths are phrased in terms of the six sense bases, bodily, verbal and mental actions, liberation attainment through cessation of bodily, verbal and mental action, and path. There need not be any reference to a "doer" in this formulation. As the Buddha makes clear in the
moḷiyaphagguna sutta (
SN 12.12 ) and
acelakassapa sutta (
SN 12.17 ), such a question as to whether the doer himself or others are the recipients of the kammic fruits of one´s wholesome and unwholesome deeds of body, speech or mind, is not a valid question in this context. Thus, the answer the article offers is not a valid answer and sides with the eternalists view, misrepresenting the Buddha's supramundane right view teachings in this context. In this context, the correct question to pose is, "with what as condition does the results of
kamma come to be?" And the proper answer is "with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, holding; with holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, physical suffering, mental suffering and despair. Such is the origination of this whole mass of suffering".
After this anticlimax, the article continues to diverge from the deep suttas it quotes at the beginning, straying further and further from the well proclaimed Dhamma into
abhidhamma doctrine, before arriving at the conclusion that the actions of arahants can be designated as kamma or kiriya. As the following quotes from the suttas will show, Bhante's speculations about the arahant at the time of his or her [final] cessation of the six sense bases of contact to justify this conclusion is [might be] unwarranted
papañcā.
Repudiation of the kamma-of-arahants" view by way of exposing unwarranted papañcā
Let's subject the following statement by Bhante to further scrutiny in light of the suttas to show that it is unwarranted
papañcā.
Sammā kammantā, when supported by the other path factors, eventually leads (saṁvattati) to the cessation of rebirth-productive kamma at the time of attainment of Arahantship, and to the cessation of all actions (kamma) by body speech or mind, at the time of the Arahant's khandhaparinibbāna.
From the
sekha sutta (
SN 48.53 ), the Buddha explains one beyond training as follows:
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, asekho bhikkhucha indriyāni pajānāti.
‘Cakkhundriyaṃ, sotindriyaṃ, ghānindriyaṃ, jivhindriyaṃ, kāyindriyaṃ, manindriyaṃ—’imāni kho cha indriyāni sabbena sabbaṃsabbathā sabbaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhissanti, aññāni ca cha indriyāni na kuhiñci kismiñciuppajjissantī’ti pajānāti.
Ayampi kho, bhikkhave, pariyāyo yaṃpariyāyaṃ āgamma asekho bhikkhuasekhabhūmiyaṃ ṭhito ‘asekhosmī’ti pajānātī”ti.
Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is one beyond training wisely understands the six faculties—the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty, the mind faculty. He wisely understands: ‘These six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder, and no other six faculties will arise anywhere in any way.’ This too is a method by means of which a bhikkhu who is beyond training, standing on the plane of one beyond training, wisely understands: ‘I am one beyond training.’”
So we see that the time of the arahant's exhaustion of life, the breakup of the body, is the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact. The
kotthita sutta (
AN 4.173 ) makes it clear that any speculations with reference to the cessation of the six sense bases of contact is unwarranted
papañcā.
“‘channaṃ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṃ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṃ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti. ‘channaṃ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṃ asesavirāganirodhā natthaññaṃ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti. ‘channaṃ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṃ asesavirāganirodhā atthi ca natthi ca aññaṃ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti. ‘channaṃ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṃ asesavirāganirodhā nevatthi no natthaññaṃ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti.
"Friend, if one says thus: 'With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact, there is something else', one proliferates that which ought not be proliferated. Friend, if one says thus: 'With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact, there is nothing else', one proliferates that which ought not be proliferated. Friend if one says thus: 'With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact, there is both something else and nothing else', one proliferates that which ought not be proliferated. Friend, if one says thus: 'With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact, there is neither something else nor nothing else,' one proliferates that which ought not be proliferated."
]yāvatā, āvuso, channaṃ phassāyatanānaṃ gati tāvatā papañcassa gati; yāvatā papañcassa gati tāvatā channaṃ phassāyatanānaṃ gati. channaṃ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṃ asesavirāganirodhā papañcanirodho papañcavūpasamo”ti.
Friend, as far as the range of the six bases of contact extends, just so far extends the range of papañcā. As far as the range of papañcā extends, just so far extends the range of the six bases for contact. With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases of contact there is the cessation of papañcā, the subsiding of papañcā."
From this sutta, we see that even the very notion that the arahant has some
all actions (kamma) by body speech or mind (a something else) left to be abandoned at the time of the [final] cessation of the six bases of contact, or half a
kammanirodha to be attained at the time of the [final] cessation of the six bases of contact, is a proliferation of that which ought not be proliferated, an unwarranted
papañcā.
Given the qualities of the well proclaimed Dhamma as: 'The Dhamma is well proclaimed by the Blessed One (
svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo), directly visible [in this very life] (
sandiṭṭhiko), not involving time (
akāliko), [inviting one to] come and see (
ehipassiko), leading onwards (
opanāyiko), to be personally experienced by the wise (
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī), the arahant need not wait for the breakup of the body before attaining the cessation of all action. So we see that there is no justification for re-defining the Buddha's definition of kammanirodha to fit the kamma-of-arahant thesis.
Repudiation of the kamma-of-arahants view by way of exposing a self-contradiction
The following analysis will show that the arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without encountering a self-contradiction.
Now let's analyze Bhante's main argument for justifying the kamma-of-arahants view. Commenting on
khammanirodha sutta in the article, Bhante writes the following:
When he says “Whatever action one does now by body, speech, or mind. This is called new kamma.”, this refers to kamma in its active/productive form, as the action that leads to results (vipāka) for the doer in the future.
Here, Bhante again introduces an
abhidhamma style re-definition of "new kamma" to fit his thesis. Bhante re-defines new kamma as
active/productive kamma that leads to results (vipāka) for the doer in the future, implying that there exists
non-active/non-productive kamma that does not lead to results (
vipāka) for the doer in the future.
To clarify the distinction between the Buddha's definition of "new kamma" and Bhante's re-definition, I quote the relevant section of the
khammanirodha sutta (
SN 35.146 ) as follows:
katamañca, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ?
yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, etarahi kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācāya manasā,
idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ.
And what, O bhikkhus, is new kamma?
O bhikkhus, whatever present action is done by body, speech, or mind.
This is called, O bhikkhus, new kamma.
From this translation, we get a very clear and concise definition of "new kamma" from the Buddha as
whatever present action is done by body, speech, or mind.Now, let's analyze Bhante's re-definition of "new kamma" to show that the arahant's actions cannot be designated as
kamma without encountering a self-contradiction.
In the
nibbedhika Sutta (
AN 6.63 ), the Buddha defines
kamma as
cetanā, saying "It is volition (
cetanā), O bhikkhus, that I call
kamma. For having intended, one acts by body, speech, or mind".
In the
upādānaparipavatta sutta (
SN 22.56 ), the Buddha defines
saṅkhārā in
panca upādānakhanda as
cetanā:
“katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā — rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā. ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
“And what, O bhikkhus, are saṅkhārā?
There are these six classes of volition — volition regarding forms, volition regarding sounds, volition regarding odours, volition regarding tastes, volition regarding tangibles, volition regarding dhammas. These, O bhikkhus, are called sankhārā.
In the
khajjanīya sutta (
SN 22.79 ), the Buddha explains why
saṅkhārā are called
saṅkhārā as follows:
Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha
Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.
And why, O bhikkhus, do you call them saṅkhārā?
‘They precondition the conditioned,’ O bhikkhus, therefore they are called saṅkhārā.
Kiñca saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti? Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti. Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.
And what is the conditioned that they precondition? 'They precondition conditioned form as form; they precondition conditioned feeling as feeling; they precondition conditioned perception as perception; they precondition conditioned saṅkhārā as saṅkhārā; they precondition conditioned consciousness as consciousness'. ‘They precondition the conditioned,’ O bhikkhus, therefore they are called saṅkhārā.
From this definition, since
saṅkhārā precondition
saṅkhārā upādānakkhandhā themselves, we see that
saṅkhārā leads to origination of
saṅkhārā. But what about the other four
saṅkhatā that
saṅkhārā preconditions (form, feeling perception and consciousness)? These also being
upādānakkhandhā, we know they are
anicca,
saṅkhata,
paṭicca samuppannaṃ, and since all
saṅkhārā are
anicca (
sabbe saṅkhārā anicca), these four
saṅkhatā are also
saṅkhārā, thus we can conclude that
saṅkhārā lead to origination of
saṅkhārā.
But do there exist
saṅkhārā that lead to the cessation of
saṅkhārā? From
aggappasādā sutta (
AN 4.34 ), the Buddha declares:
yāvatā, bhikkhave, dhammā saṅkhatā, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo tesaṃ aggamakkhāyati.
“To whatever extent there are dhammas that are conditioned, the noble eightfold path is declared the foremost among them".
We know that the noble eightfold path lead to stilling of all
saṅkhārā (
sabbasaṅkhārasamatho), and since the noble eightfold path is
saṅkhatā, and
saṅkhatā are
saṅkhārā, thus
saṅkhārā also lead to the cessation of
saṅkhārā.
So we can conclude that,
saṅkhārā either lead to the origination of
saṅkhārā or to the cessation of
saṅkhārā.
The question may arise as to whether there could be
saṅkhārā that neither lead to origination of
saṅkhārā nor to the cessation of
saṅkhārā. The answer is that there cannot be, as such a
saṅkhārā will be
asaṅkhata (
nibbāna), a self-contradiction. A "black is white" principle.
Thus, if kamma is
cetanā and
cetanā is a type of
saṅkhārā, and
saṅkhārā has only two possibilities, either leading to the origination of
saṅkhārā or to the cessation of
saṅkhārā, then we must conclude that
kamma, being a type of
saṅkhārā can only have two possibilities as well, either leading to the origination of
kamma or to the cessation of
kamma. No other possibilities can exist. So far, so good, but the analysis to reach this conclusion may appear too technical, so let's see if this conclusion that
kamma either leads to the origination of
kamma or to the cessation of
kamma has any backing in the suttas.
From the
paṭhamanidāna sutta (
AN 3.111 ), we know that any action born of greed, hatred or delusion is designated as
kamma that leads to the origination of
kamma (
kammaṃ kammasamudayāya saṃvattati), whereas any action born of non-greed, non-hatred or non-delusion is designated as
kamma that leads to the cessation of
kamma (
kammaṃ kammanirodhāya saṃvattati).
So from this sutta, we find only two possibilities for
kamma as well:
kamma either leads to the origination of
kamma or leads to the cessation of
kamma. A
non-active/non-productive kamma that neither leads to origination of
kamma nor cessation of
kamma will be
kammanirodha, a plain self-contradiction, similar to the contradiction that
saṅkhārā is
asaṅkhata (
nibbāna) . A "black is white" principle.
From this analysis, we see that the arahant's actions cannot be designated as
kamma without encountering a self-contradiction. One will need the ability to believe that "black is white" in order to justify the view that arahant's actions by body, speech and mind can be designated as
kamma.
I hope that this direct approach has successfully repudiated the "kamma of arahants" view with the following good reasons:
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without contradicting the four noble truths.
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without proliferating that which ought not be proliferated, an unwarranted papañcā.
- The arahant's actions cannot be designated as kamma without encountering a self-contradiction.
Let's look at the question Bhante attempted to answer in his article to see if this repudiation can provide the proper answer:
However, it is not said in AN 3.34 that an Arahant´s deeds cannot be called “actions” (lit. kamma
) anymore in a conventional sense. Otherwise, how else should one call them? The Theravāda tradition has chosen to use “kiriya” instead.
In light of this repudiation, the answer is to use the very term that the Buddha uses himself to designate the action of arahants, namely
kammanirodha.
Why does any attempt to designate the actions of an arahant as
kamma lead to self-contradictions, or contradictions with the Buddha's teachings of the four noble truths, or unwarranted
papañcā when subjected to scrutiny in light of the
saddhamma? Because as the Buddha declares in the
alagaddūpama Sutta (
MN 22 ), "O bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, [self-] evident, and free of patchwork". With the well proclaimed
dhamma being clear, open, [self-] evident, and free of patchwork, any interpretations of the well proclaimed Dhamma based on arisen "other insignificant teachings" (
uppannaṃ parappavādaṃ), like the
abhidhamma doctrine, is easily exposed as patchwork when subjected to analysis. Such wrong interpretations are bound to lead to inconsistencies in the well proclaimed Dhamma which is clear, open, [self-] evident, and free of patchwork.
At the end of the exposition of the
kammanirodha sutta, because of its profundity, the Buddha admonishes the bhikkhus to resort to root of trees and empty huts to cultivate
jhāna, that they may attain arahantship through the full comprehension of old
kamma, the abandoning of new
kamma, the realization of liberation through the cessation of
kamma, thus bringing the noble eightfold path to fulfillment by development.
But why does the Buddha ask the disciples to go through all the trouble of resorting to root of trees and empty huts to cultivate
jhāna in order to understand
kamma, something which is nowadays easily understandable according to the
abhidhamma doctrine, with re-defined sutta terms like
kiriya,
kammavipāka, etc and new
abhidhamma terms like
paṭisandhi viññāṇa,
khandhaparinibbāna,
abyākata, etc? If the
abhidhamma can attempt to simplify the Buddha's
atakkāvacara teachings to make the teachings understandable enough for commentators to write their commentaries about the arahants as if they are experts on the workings of
kamma, then why can't we also simplify the Buddha's
atakkāvacara teachings to our level of understanding so we can write our own commentaries about the arahants? After all, to our naked eyes (if we are fortunate enough to bless our eyes on the sight of an arahant), it looks like the arahant performs actions with body, speech or mind just like us, so why not designate those actions as
kamma or
kiriya, just like we designate our own actions? Why not simplify the
dhamma to fit our understanding based on our own experiences, even if our experiences are not in the range of the arahant's experience? Why keep the arahant a mystery if he eats and walks and talks and feels like us?
Perhaps Venerable Nandaka's simile from the
nandakovāda sutta (
MN 146 , Venerable Bodhi's translation) can help us to appreciate how the looks of an arahant could be deceiving.
“Sisters, suppose a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife. Without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, he would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife, and having cut, severed, and carved all this away, he would remove the outer hide and cover the cow again with that same hide. Would he be speaking rightly if he were to say: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before’?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because if that skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife, without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, and would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife, and having cut, severed, and carved all this away, even though he covers the cow again with that same hide and says: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before,’ that cow would still be disjoined from that hide.”
“Sisters, I have given this simile in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning: ‘The inner mass of flesh’ is a term for the six internal bases. ‘The outer hide’ is a term for the six external bases. ‘The inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments’ is a term for delight and lust. ‘The sharp butcher’s knife’ is a term for noble wisdom—the noble wisdom that cuts, severs, and carves away the inner defilements, fetters, and bonds.
I think it is quite fitting to end this repudiation of the kamma-of-arahants view with a few verses from the suttas, extolling the arahant as one beyond the reach of language:
“Beings percipient of what can be expressed
Become established in what can be expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed,
They come under the yoke of Death.
But having fully understood what can be expressed,
One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
For that does not exist for him
By which one could even speak of him.
Saṅkhāya vatthūni pamāya bījaṃ,
sineham assa nānuppavecche,
sa ve munī jātikhayantadassī,
takkaṃ pahāya na upeti saṅkhaṃ.
"Having surveyed the field and measured the seed,
He waters it not for moisture,
That sage in full view of birth's end,
Lets go of logic and comes not within designation."
sa sabbadhammesu visenibhūto
yaṃ kiñci diṭṭhaṃ va sutaṃ mutaṃ vā
tameva dassiṃ vivaṭaṃ carantaṃ
kenīdha lokasmi vikappayeyya
Unopposed to all things he has become
whether those seen and heard or those thought about.
The one seeing just that, faring openly,
by what in the world could you make him out?
* Johann : most styling, approaches... added/edited for more proper accessibility, links added... Start to more relativate addressings with putting word in {} brackes in addition. Commentary can be mostly accessed by adding _att at the end of the url (before #)
Johann (admin-cloth using): some tag-errors corrected