Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned?

Upvote:2

I think that the "conditions to transgress precepts" are spelled out in the Vinaya in great detail. For example, in The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained,

  • Pages 245 through 247 define what "a lie" is
  • Pages 54 through 74 define "stealing"
  • Pages 75 through 85 defining "killing"

And similarly for other (monastic) precepts.

Upvote:2

Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena,

The simply Sila section (or point of view), especially the Vinaya section does not answer this question in a valid way, since it is a "Abhidhamma" question. Vinaya does not always "judge" on the level of cause and effect on that level, but has also certain "will to exist" as its perceptive (one is to maintain a long life for the Sangha). Atma guesses that this matter was actually the reason for your question, now finding that Upasaka is brought back to where he actually came from.

If one looks into Vinaya more deeply one would find many occasions where such as intentions does not seem to play a rule at all. Also the factor of "deliberate" is not well explained and gives a lot of place for hypocrisy and in-honesty.

Classical Abhidhamma, where such things like factors are taken from, do also easily misguide since they give a lot of anchors for defilement to seek for justification as long as ones mind is not really trained and able to be most up-right in matters of judgement.

Atma guesses, that "simple" and profound Suttas like those dealing with the matter of "Accepting = instigate = doing by one self" shows why the matter is not so easy to be carried, by those who like to put Dhamma into ones way of life and not vici versa. ( 6. Acelakavaggo AN03.157-163, , (17) 7. KammapathapeyyālaαΉƒ, translated by Ven. Sister Uppalavanna (For examples please see links)

Another often appearing mistake is to make inversions of arguments. Most famous are sayings like "but this does not matter for laypeople", when certain thinks have been taught as fault for a Bhikkhu. Such is in now way generally valid. Cause and effect, at the end, do not really care about your current assumed livelihood and knowledge.

So it needs good investigations of which has certain impacts in your current relations (generally called fault or transgression) and what is actually kusala or akusala, meaning that it has impact beyond your current relation and will ripe anyhow somewhere.

Since the question was on the level of Abhidhamma, or real higher virtue, Atma suggests Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, to leave this question open for a long time, since it is a straight line to insight and most beneficial to investigate.

So actually totally misleading interpretations, comings from inversions of the original sources.

The missing of a confession, if one does a miss-deed, might be founded on the famous Instruction to Rahula

Against verbal and bodily action, a misdeed here, in the sphere of mental actions does obliviously not require the direct support of a kalyanamitta.

One can see here that in the case of bodily and verbal actions, it has always direct impact on ones society and with it, endangers the current possibility of practice and support for it enormously. That is why there are also certain punishments in the Vinaya, to do all possible that one sticks on the good road. As for mental actions only, it would be not possible to get them worked out. So here one is left alone. But that is the reason why especially here should be a lot of explaining, since the actually impact is not different.

So one should remember this if somebody cleans your room from vermins, if it is a good idea to feel "Thanks" or what ever kind of acceptance with it. To guide an potential executor to them or opening the door... such are already certain mixes of bodily verbal and mental actions.

More post

Search Posts

Related post