kamma, skilfull questions (was: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121)

[Hugo]

Hello Richard,

On 10/21/05, Richard P. Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 10:26 -0400, Hugo wrote:
>
> > All this discussion about interpretations of the Law of Kamma leads me
> > to understand why in the sutta of Right View it is said that believing
> > in the Law of Kamma is Right View with fermentations:
> >
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-117-tb0.html
>
> Thank you for citing this text, Hugo. It is one of the texts that has
> been pivotal in my understanding of kamma (poor though that
> understanding remains).

This sutta was pointed out to me by a bhikkhu when some discussions
about rebirth, kamma and related issues arose.  Since then I keep it
handy whenever I am somehow involved in such kind of discussions, as I
think it completely drives the nail through.


> Also pivotal was a discussion in Buddhaghosa's
> commentary to MN version of the sutta on the four foundations of
> mindfulness, in which he said, as I recall, that stream-entry consists
> in abandoning attachment to good conduct (siila) and vows (vata).
> Whenever good conduct and vows are undertaken with some notion of
> personal gain---that is, whenever one asks "What is in this good conduct
> for me---then one is attached to the good conduct. But when one just
> does the wholesome action because it is the wholesome action, then one
> is no longer attached to the wholesome action.

I realized that too, if you perform the action in hopes of getting
something out of it, it is greed (lobha) the motivation making the
action automatically unwholesome as the root is an unwholesome root.

That's why it is important to encourage the development of Karuna
(compassion) and Metta (loving-friendliness), so the actions that one
performs are based on wholesome roots, ergo they are kusala (skilfull)
and not akusala (unskilfull)


> Much of what has been said in this whole protracted discussion of
> whether eating (or buying) meat is bad karma has struck me as focusing
> on a relatively unimportant issue (the goodness of a particular action)
> and ignoring the more important issue of good character.

I think it is simpler than that, as I said, what is the root of not
stoping eating meat?, if that root is greed, hated or delusion, it is
an unwholesome action, period.  No need to try to justify it.

The problem is that the mind is excellent in finding justifications,
that's why we should not fall in its intellectual game of making
rationalizations of this or that, or somebody said this and somebody
said that, and look, even somebody else does it.

The teachings of the Buddha are deep, but I don't think they are
complex, a defiled mind makes them complex.


> When character
> is maximally good, I am tempted to say, the very question of whether it
> is acceptable to eat (or buy) the flesh of animals killed against their
> will ceases to arise as a question. The answer is dead obvious.

As always, knowing what questions to make and how to make them will
automatically provide the answers, no need to worry for finding the
answers, it is better to find what should be asked, when and how.

BTW, in that topic I recommend:
Questions of Skill  by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html

Greetings,
--
Hugo